Sunday, April 24, 2011

Studies about school shooting

I found out one thing.... to make a killer, you need a lot of ingredients to go right.
Not one party that's involved with the guilty should take all the blame, but everyone should share part of it.

Media likes to blame gun control, violent TV game, well same violent act happen all over the world, its really knieves or guns, your pick.

(PS: I would still say guns is more deadly, 33 people is the highest record ever, but a good knife wielder can still kill around 10-20 people in one single go. I remember reading like... 17 people in school being knifed in Taiwan or China... Though the act committed is the same, different tools DO affect the outcome. Guns control is needed. I researched if its possible for me to plan for such an act where I live, oh yeah, it's possible. Rather, it's not that difficult. For such a deadly weapon, it should be considered seriously... it should not fall into hands of the immature, I am still pro-gun control, and pro-knife control.)

 Pro-gun, pro-TV game people like to blame the drug, or education, or the society itself for being wrong.
Teachers blame the parents, parents blame the TV games/movies, school.
Drug company like to dismiss it and underplay it's possibility, saying it's effective if treated with therapist help.

Is this how the blame-shifting world goes round?

Thank GOD the shooting thing is dying down in USA due to less media coverage lately, but it's still out there, there are so many kids/adults who still need help. On average there's like... 1-2 big cases every year documented in US alone. 

Kids who are withdrawn with not-so-wholesome family will never talk about it with their "therapist" anyway, in fact i don't know if they see them regularly. If they had a supportive church, like mine, or some kind of support group... at least there's a "group" of healthy people as support structure. Similar to a good village setting... which might help. (not that its full proof.)

If not a single party wants to take the blame, then it's easy, everyone has a part in it. 
1. The decision of the kid plays a major role - bad experiences tend to be linked to hatred to society as a whole, and the fact they are withdrawn and depressed makes it tough to reach to.

2. The environment plays a major role - neglect from family, or ignorant parenting, unhealthy media (including violent games/movies/negative news) or school bullying, society labeling, causes the kid to hate life and got used to expressing the frustration with violent acts. (most would be satisfied with the virtual world, only those who wants to actually end their life, or need a lot of attention but screw it up, would act it out.)

3. The drug, in the shooters cases, acted as a stimulant to increase the acting-out possibility, if a depressed kid is already easily angered or agitated, and just HAPPEN to fall under the harsh side effect category, then we get our monster. 

That's my formula, or equation so far with my own studying.... 

Below commentary are other related... but not directly related topics of my studies....

And something that disturbed me...
And a lot of the fake "How to suicide," or "If you are thinking of suicide" guide out there trying to talk people out of suicide should just stop, take it down... they don't really fact they are a mockery. Though they served a really good story material to me. *gotta admit some ideas are pretty funny* 

i am not even suicidal and I hated the wording of those posts, some...belittling the thoughts of suicide with harsh and stupid jokes to people who are suffering, or posts that acted nice and all... but does the same thing, basically saying "Don't do something so stupid to hurt others." (So what you are doing is calling those who want to suicide a "failure" or a "loser" again. I call it adding oil to the fire.)

I don't think it helps. Really... i think the most effective is more like stories of people who walk out of suicidal thoughts, instead of those "please don't do it, God loves you." or "don't do it cause you will fail" posts.

Reaction of reading those is
"It's not like you know me, or you really cared anyway." --- my reaction

"You don't care, you just don't want to see people die and feel bad for yourself, I think that's rather irrational, there are already too many humans on earth." --- my reaction

"Oh people will feel bad in a bit, but after a while they will move on, it's better without me." <--- real response.

...... in fact i prefer a thread that discussed about failed attempts or methods of painless suicide seriously better. o.obb Not that I'm suicidal or anything... it just seem more respectful.

Those that worked is making the suicidal person think:
1. I would not want to screw up my own suicide and live on as a half-dead zombie. --- the concept is scarier than death itself, the failure to escape life is almost the worst failure of a failed life.

2. If the suicidal thought is taken seriously, there's less likely hood to want to do it. If it's not taken seriously by surrounding people, then there's more likely hood to actually attempt it.

Now after studying... I would say these suicidal killers really could have been really good people if not everything goes wrong with their lives.

So far, with my limited knowledge...
Family structure:
I think people with the same gene, or tendency would not have become killers in their living environment in an old tribal setting... where there's shared religious belief, close family kins who survive with each other's contribution, where everyone has a job, and treat visitors as part of the family. (though there were murderers and bad people in the old days, they usually go in groups like gangs... not 1-2 loners who could kill so many, ok we have suicide bombers, they are a different case in itself.)

I have always find this "neo-family" concept in US surprisingly odd, such small family units and everyone live so far apart from one another in most cases... almost every culture in the world has focused on large family, where kins and relatives live in close quarter together. (even if not under the same roof and in many cultures they DO share the same roof.) Only in US where parents would kick the kid out once he reaches 18... and neo family parents have such little support from other relatives in raising their young, they have ended up depending heavily on the school teachers for it. In other cultures, it would have been the aunt, cousins, or the uncle of the kid to help with discipline.

I am agreeing with one school of thoughts...

Absence of physical discipline as a whole, due to the fear of misuse and abuse, thinking that lacking physical discipline is love....can be bad. Its like communism, great idea, doesn't work so well in the real world.

A lot of the westernized culture is under the same "spoiling love" influence, taking away the concept of discipline physically... might not do so well with the boys, in some cases, even girls.

One person made the argument that boys learn better by "doing" while girls can learn better with pure text book instructions. This might explain why girls in general does better in academics, (plus more female teachers than male) while boys excelled in workplace better.

If teachers, school authority, and parents lacks the permission to feel OK to inflict disciplinary pain or action to the child.... not all children need physical discipline... and it's often misused, but I can see that  some children NEED it. Especially those who are disruptive, and making it dangerous for everyone.

People confuse physical discipline with violence.
I don't think its violence, it's confrontation with a controlled power involved, it establishes respect to authority of the stronger party, it's especially important to boys, and males who tend to be more aggressive, have pent up energy etc.

This is WHY Shonen Jump, and Super heroes sold so well to guys. It's this kind of lessons repeat over, and over, and over again. Heroes are the respectable authority, the villains are like the disruptive kids. (excuse my female implications... XD)

If its violence it should be two mad, irrational guys going at each other for no good outcome but just to over power each other for the sake of material and power... (Drug lord vs drug lord?)
Heroes usually are there to protect, to restore order, to prevent more destruction, for people to have a better life. There's a purpose in their action confronting villains, that sets the act apart from pure violence.

In fact if you do physical discipline right, the receiving end would feel they are important enough to be disciplined, and remember the lesson well for life, or it will balance them, take the poison out... sort of speak. (I'm convinced of that watch Bully Beatdown, douchbags can use a beating, if they volunteer for it, they are so ignorant that they would usually take it. And those douchbags never gotten their ass beat, seriously, they are SPOILED ROTTEN BRATS! And all seem nicer after a beat down. lol)

If you set the rules, and the child agreed to the rules, usually physical discipline are taken quite well. It doesn't even need to hurt that much... Just a bit of pain would help with memory of the lesson learned.

In many tribes, part of their education is demons (someone who dressed up like a scary monster) would come out to whip the child even if they had done nothing wrong, giving them some painful memory, relating fear to "stepping out of line and you will suffer"... that seem to work really well, its out of a ritual, not anger, therefore in those tribes, parents don't have to beat their kids, at all ... not that I like the idea of being hit on the butt for doing nothing wrong though. XD

Physical discipline...
If you don't do it, someday the child's going to get it, either the right, or the wrong way, by making some really stupid decisions OR inflict pain on themselves or others!

In Short, I support this: Give the kid a beating, if he/she needs it, but don't do it out of anger, do it out of justice and lawfulness. Establish the proper "court" at home/school. (in fact Bully Beatdown has a very successful model, one should consider that.)

In extension to this... I think i support "torturous" sentence for some serious crimes.... like rape... or violent acts... like whipping on the butt and make them lie in hospitals for 6 months. Then get whipped again.
Cheaper, and it works with the fear in a good way. ;D

No comments: