[lbo-talk] Collective idiocy....

Sean Andrews cultstud76 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 12:37:42 PST 2012


I'm overposted as of this one, so I guess I'll have to leave any future responses to others. It is worth noting - as I did to colleagues who decided the China reference was some sort of counterfactual to the gun problem - that the guy in China was far less efficient: he didn't end up killing anyone. Lanza on the other hand...

"The intense violence lasted about 10 minutes. Lanza fired at least three, 30-round magazines with deadly accuracy. Two of the people he shot survived. All of the victims were shot multiple times.

"I did seven (autopsies) myself with three to 11 wounds apiece," Chief State Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver III said Saturday. "Only two were shot at close range. I believe everybody was hit (by bullets) more than once." http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-timeline-newtown-shooting-1216-20121215,0,3619550,full.story

...The cop video shows that other weapons could be equally deadly, though I don't know how much more or less fatal rounds from a Bushmaster would be than an accurately fired handgun or two. At least he probably would have had to reload more often.

You're the resident gun advocate so I won't go head to head with you on that. It would seem worth considering this as a continuum, where having fewer assault rifles in the hands of people who would use them on other people might be a way to limit the carnage. That said, I'm pretty sure most of the cases Ames looks at involved handguns of one kind or another rather than these assault weapons. So maybe that's as much of a red herring as Brooks' psychobabble.

In any case, I'm more inclined to look at both the psychological condition and the actions taken as being related in some way to wider social and cultural factors. We either have more crazy people, more crazy people with guns, or more crazy people pushed over some edge by their perceived school or workplace target. It seems worthwhile to figure out which is which and, though I'm not researching it myself, I hope there are others willing to think about these unicorns as a species worthy of careful, reflective study - especially because without it someone else will ascribe it to a single variable that can be easily screened and enforced through government policy (or not.) It is, after all, a big world, with a lot of other societies not plagued by gun violence to the degree the US is. That can't be a complete coincidence can it?

To the degree that Ames is trying to think about that in a systemic way, I appreciate it. And, of course, it is always good to find out when or if the hypothesis one holds is completely full of shit.

I'll close by recommending Adam Kotsko's book, "Why we love sociopaths," which is a fairly thorough collection of the recent swath of sociopathic characters on TV programs, including Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Dexter, Weeds, Mad Men, House, and many more. Again, provocative but not foolproof. Still, one point he makes is that sociopaths are rarely moved to action, and even more rarely able to hatch elaborate plans. Without directly entering the fray again over what motivates every psycho/sociopath, I will say I am very glad shag's stalker was never successful. Kosko would say that this is more often than not the case, making the current raft of TV sociopaths interesting in that they are usually able to make exactly these kinds of plans - usually involving careful, thoughtful, manipulation. There's a whole political economic argument to his book that is not unlike Ames - which is probably why I like it. But he also offers an interesting taxonomy of tv sociopaths that is, if nothing else, entertaining.

-s

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>wrote:


> Sean Andrews writes:
>
> [ a bunch of interesting stuff, but then ... ]
>
>
> it is inarguable that, without a high powered assault
>> rifle, he couldn't have mowed down 20 first graders and
>> their teachers in a matter of minutes.
>>
>
> I'll take the other side of that argument. Here's a recent example of the
> kind of "performance" someone (in this case, shockingly, a cop against an
> unarmed black man) can "accomplish" with "only" a pistol:
>
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/crime/**article/Furor-over-footage-of-**
> police-shooting-4113400.php<http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Furor-over-footage-of-police-shooting-4113400.php>
>
> "Moody fired 13 bullets in 4.2 seconds, investigators wrote, striking
> Duenez 11 times, including four shots while Duenez was on the ground."
>
>
>
> ... be sure to watch the video, if you dare.
>
> I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to see that a determined
> person could easily kill 26 (or more) unarmed children and teachers in that
> scenario with whatever weapon he chose.
>
> http://www.china.org.cn/wap/**2010-04/29/content_19933751.**htm<http://www.china.org.cn/wap/2010-04/29/content_19933751.htm>
>
> 28 kindergarten children injured in knife attack
> April-29-2010
> Twenty-eight children and three adults were injured when a man with a
> knife attacked them at a kindergarten in east China Thursday.
>
> Five of the children are critically ill in hospital after the attack
> in the Zhongxin Kindergarten in Taixing City, Jiangsu Province, said city
> government and police sources.
>
> Many of the injured children are 4 years old and of the same class.
>
> Police have detained a 47-year-old man who is alleged to have carried
> out the attack at about 9:30 a.m., said a Taixing Police spokesman.
>
> The three adults have been identified as two kindergarten teachers
> and a security guard.
>
> This was the second knife attack on children in China in two days. A
> man attacked 16 pupils and one teacher with a knife at a primary school in
> south China's Guangdong Province Wednesday afternoon.
>
> Five of the injured schoolers in the Guangdong attack case are still
> critically ill in hospital by Thursday morning. The man identified as Chen
> Kangbing has been detained by police in Leizhou City of Guangdong.
>
>
>
> /jordan
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list