Almost too strange and disturbing to be true.

[Albert]

Man decapitates passenger aboard Greyhound bus in Manitoba:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/31/greyhound-transcanada.html

[bakerzdosen]

Yeah, having never ridden a Greyhound, I'm even less enthusiastic to do so now...

[russell_bynum]

It boggles my mind that people could sit there and not do anything during the attack.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It boggles my mind that people could sit there and not do anything during the attack.

 

It's been suggested before that a "culture of passivity" exists among Canadian men. Whether that's uniquely true of Canadians I don't know. OTOH, it's worth pointing out that no one charged the gunman at Virginia Tech last year; indeed, there were isolated complaints about victims' failure to do so. I think perhaps the most informative quote comes from that Wikipedia link:

 

"ordinary citizens cannot be expected to react heroically in the midst of terror."

 

This is, afterall, why we revere heroes: because they are the rare folks capable of brave, selfless action in situations that leave everyone else fleeing in a wide-eyed panic.

 

In all honesty, I'm not sure what I'd do when faced with a maniac wielding a "Rambo" knife.

[FlyingFinn]

In all honesty, I'm not sure what I'd do when faced with a maniac wielding a "Rambo" knife.

 

I'm pretty sure I know what I would do. Save myself and the people immediately around me.

If there is clearly a maniac with nothing to loose swinging a very large knife and I have no weapon at all, I can fully admit I would NOT get in the middle of a fight where the victim is probably fatally wounded already.

At that point I'd make sure I'm not the next victim and try to save as many others as possible from the same faith. Second priority would be to contain the criminal so that he can be taken care of by proper authorities and does not escape.

 

And reading the article that's more or less exactly what the people on the bus did.

 

--

Mikko

[Dave McReynolds]

I think people would be more likely to do something if they felt a life could be saved. It is possible that the victim in this case was already dead by the time anyone could react. Apparently they did something to try and keep him in the bus after everyone had left the bus. Maybe that's the best they could have done under the circumstances. (Oh, I know, if they had all been armed they could have taken turns shooting him, but they weren't, so maybe under the circumstances, they did the best they could).

[Smoky]

I saw the interview of the guy in the seat in front of the killing. He and the driver, and a trucker who stopped, kept the killer in the bus, and disabled the bus so he couldn't drive away.

 

The killer be-headed and gutted the victim. He used " a freakin huge Rambo knife".

 

I don't know what else the others on the bus were expected to do?

[Twisties]

Actually what's disturbing is that this is not strange, or at least it was only strange for being in Canada and not using a gun.

 

But the other aspects of it, murder, murder in front of witnesses, dismemberment, multiple wounds, possible signs of mental disorder.... all too common indeed.

 

Rather than worrying about the passengers reactions, I'm worried about when we as a society are going to confront our culture of violence.

 

Jan

[smiller]

Rather than worrying about the passengers reactions, I'm worried about when we as a society are going to confront our culture of violence.

How should we go about that?

 

[David]

Rather than worrying about the passengers reactions, I'm worried about when we as a society are going to confront our culture of violence.

How should we go about that?

 

I'm guessing it'll be a legislative remedy.

 

What I'd like to know is this: ARE we really more violent? The more I study history, the less violent we seem.

[marcopolo]

It's been suggested before that a "culture of passivity" exists among Canadian men.

 

In the kindest way I know how, I think that assertion is "bullsh*t". Don't believe everything you read, especially on Wikipedia, and don't believe every assertion made by some university prof.

[SeanC]

Actually what's disturbing is that this is not strange, or at least it was only strange for being in Canada and not using a gun.

 

But the other aspects of it, murder, murder in front of witnesses, dismemberment, multiple wounds, possible signs of mental disorder.... all too common indeed.

 

Rather than worrying about the passengers reactions, I'm worried about when we as a society are going to confront our culture of violence.

Our culture's fine. Canada's culture is fine. This was the act of a deranged individual and I don't consider it grounds for an indictment of culture.

 

We're never going to rid society of deranged individuals. Just don't wanna be seated next to them when they go off....

[smiller]

What I'd like to know is this: ARE we really more violent? The more I study history, the less violent we seem.

You're skipping ahead David...

[David]

What I'd like to know is this: ARE we really more violent? The more I study history, the less violent we seem.

You're skipping ahead David...

 

I was trying to fast forward through the gun control stuff before Fugu and Greg smelled blood in the water.

[Twisties]

What I'd like to know is this: ARE we really more violent? The more I study history, the less violent we seem.

You're skipping ahead David...

 

I was trying to fast forward through the gun control stuff before Fugu and Greg smelled blood in the water.

 

I'd rather talk about your denial that we are a violent society. I would argue the first step in recovery would be the recognition that we are a violent society. Only after there is such a consensus can we begin to confront the problem.

 

So, to start, how does any comparison to historic levels of violence matter? We live today, and many modern societies have much lower levels of violence than we do. Shouldn't our aspiration be to be one of the least violent societies of our times?

 

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

[Joel]

It's been suggested before that a "culture of passivity" exists among Canadian men.

 

In the kindest way I know how, I think that assertion is "bullsh*t". Don't believe everything you read, especially on Wikipedia, and don't believe every assertion made by some university prof.

 

C'mon, Mark, it's gonna take more than that to beat back the stereotype. Go kick his ass, and while he whimpers after that whuppin', remind him that plenty of non-passive Canadians are good with their fists and get work playing in the NHL.

 

just kidding; only satire and humor intended

[smiller]

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

Ask David, he's the one running for President.

 

[SC_SVRider]

That's just freaky! Hard to believe that someone could do that to another person with such a calm, collected, appearance about them. I just don't understand that...

[Lawman]

I was really bothered by this until I read this part..

 

"It's not something that happens regularly on a bus,"

 

 

We never had this sort of thing in Mayberry..

[Ken H.]

What I'd like to know is this: ARE we really more violent? The more I study history, the less violent we seem.

You're skipping ahead David...

 

I was trying to fast forward through the gun control stuff before Fugu and Greg smelled blood in the water.

 

I'd rather talk about your denial that we are a violent society. I would argue the first step in recovery would be the recognition that we are a violent society. Only after there is such a consensus can we begin to confront the problem.

 

So, to start, how does any comparison to historic levels of violence matter? We live today, and many modern societies have much lower levels of violence than we do. Shouldn't our aspiration be to be one of the least violent societies of our times?

 

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

I don't know that David is in denial, just that he raises what, it seems to me, is a valid question. In particular in the content of human history over say the last 4000 years or so.

 

On one hand I'd have to say yes. Given in particular, with all of our technology, our ability to kill more people faster that any time in recorded history.

 

On the other hand some of the various conquest and even standard day-to-day practices of history were pretty damn violent.

 

But basically I have to agree with you, it's largely an academic question. The more important one is, "Are we ("we" as in the westernized world) trending now toward more violent or less?" And for that it seems the answer is, "Yes."

 

All things are cyclic, but in recent history, say the last 100 years, I personally do believe our society is more violent. Which I find a disturbing trend.

[KDeline]

Because we evolved that way. The strongest survive. Its in our makeup and I fear we will always be this way. What do you think sports is all about?

[SeanC]

But basically I have to agree with you, it's largely an academic question. The more important one is, "Are we ("we" as in the westernized world) trending now toward more violent or less?" And for that it seems the answer is, "Yes."

Uh... "Yes" to "more" or yes to "less"?

 

I'll assume you meant the former, and if that's the case, I disagree with you. How would you compare today's western culture to that of, say, the 1930s and 40s? Or the first two decades of the last century? How many "world wars" has western society endured since then? If you were part of a religious or ethnic minority, would you feel safer living in the western culture of the 1930s or in today's society?

 

View it with some perspective. It may not be your ideal society, but life in most of today's western cultures is a helluva lot less nasty, brutish and short than it ever was before. Life is safer, easier and a lot less violent. There's a great deal of barbarism and savagery in the world, but you're considerably less likely to be a victim to it in a western culture than anywhere else on this big rock.

[SeanC]

Because we evolved that way. The strongest survive. Its in our makeup and I fear we will always be this way. What do you think sports is all about?

Entertainment. Fun. Passing time.

[Francois_Dumas]

Because we evolved that way. The strongest survive. Its in our makeup and I fear we will always be this way. What do you think sports is all about?

Entertainment. Fun. Passing time.

 

Than you've never seen a 'professional' soccer match......

[David]

I'd rather talk about your denial that we are a violent society. I would argue the first step in recovery would be the recognition that we are a violent society. Only after there is such a consensus can we begin to confront the problem.

 

So, to start, how does any comparison to historic levels of violence matter? We live today, and many modern societies have much lower levels of violence than we do. Shouldn't our aspiration be to be one of the least violent societies of our times?

 

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

 

Geez, Jan. Don't get all hot and bothered from a mere question, especially when it's framed as a legitimate one. I wouldn't think you'd be upset by an honest bit of inquiry.

 

I read your post as alarmist-like, thinking we were on a slippery slope somehow, and I just wondered if that was true. It seems like in many ways we are quite civilized compared to ancient practices.

 

Sure, there's plenty of violence, but I was just wondering if it was at epidemic levels. There's no denial on my part about it. I'm honestly wondering what the problem is, first, so that the solution isn't a bad fit.

[Twisties]

I'd rather talk about your denial that we are a violent society. I would argue the first step in recovery would be the recognition that we are a violent society. Only after there is such a consensus can we begin to confront the problem.

 

So, to start, how does any comparison to historic levels of violence matter? We live today, and many modern societies have much lower levels of violence than we do. Shouldn't our aspiration be to be one of the least violent societies of our times?

 

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

 

Geez, Jan. Don't get all hot and bothered from a mere question, especially when it's framed as a legitimate one. I wouldn't think you'd be upset by an honest bit of inquiry.

 

I read your post as alarmist-like, thinking we were on a slippery slope somehow, and I just wondered if that was true. It seems like in many ways we are quite civilized compared to ancient practices.

 

Sure, there's plenty of violence, but I was just wondering if it was at epidemic levels. There's no denial on my part about it. I'm honestly wondering what the problem is, first, so that the solution isn't a bad fit.

 

Ok, good, now does somebody want to talk to Sean?

[Knifemaker]

I do not think man is any more or less violent than he has ever been. History is the great teacher of this fact...

 

Is there any difference, as related by the guys of Long Way Down, between the village in Africa that was attacked for no apparent reason leaving 60 adults and over 20 children killed and butchered...and...a group of Vikings coming into a village and killing everyone in site?

 

Only real difference is the media can flash it all over the world instantly now.

 

When one's sick lust for power over another human being wants to force the issue, his barbarism is sure to be shown. This fact of history has sadly....not changed.

[rfc1992]

I'd rather talk about your denial that we are a violent society. I would argue the first step in recovery would be the recognition that we are a violent society. Only after there is such a consensus can we begin to confront the problem.

 

So, to start, how does any comparison to historic levels of violence matter? We live today, and many modern societies have much lower levels of violence than we do. Shouldn't our aspiration be to be one of the least violent societies of our times?

 

As an aside to whoever said I bet the solution is regulatory... I don't have a solution. How about we try to come up with one? Or are you happy you happy with the status quo?

 

Geez, Jan. Don't get all hot and bothered from a mere question, especially when it's framed as a legitimate one. I wouldn't think you'd be upset by an honest bit of inquiry.

 

I read your post as alarmist-like, thinking we were on a slippery slope somehow, and I just wondered if that was true. It seems like in many ways we are quite civilized compared to ancient practices.

 

Sure, there's plenty of violence, but I was just wondering if it was at epidemic levels. There's no denial on my part about it. I'm honestly wondering what the problem is, first, so that the solution isn't a bad fit.

 

Was the Mongolian empire less violent? Xerxes was merely unenlitened in his expansion of Persian influence? Alexander's conquests were civilized exchanges of rule? Perhaps we should return to a golden age of gladiatorial combat and conquest? Or the more enlightened tyranny of Stalin?

 

I believe that David is alluding to the remarkable Pax Americana that we have experienced over the past 50 years. People are people. There will always be conflict.

 

As far as the bus passenger mayhem, I would like to borrow a line from Chris Rock: "What ever happened to 'Crazy'?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It's been suggested before that a "culture of passivity" exists among Canadian men.

 

In the kindest way I know how, I think that assertion is "bullsh*t". Don't believe everything you read, especially on Wikipedia, and don't believe every assertion made by some university prof.

 

Maybe so. Or, as I pointed out, maybe Canadian men and American men are no different in that regard, and a guy carrying - and actively using - a lethal weapon is an extremely frightening thing to confront, and it's not reasonable to count on the average joe to risk certain injury (and possible death) by trying to subdue someone so armed.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Rather than worrying about the passengers reactions, I'm worried about when we as a society are going to confront our culture of violence.

 

A review of the circumstances suggests that this was a random and utterly unprovoked attack by a mentally ill individual. As such, I don't believe this incident is illustrative of prevailing societal attitudes toward the use of violence, and I'm struggling to understand why it's sparked that discussion.

[Twisties]

A review of the circumstances suggests that this was a random and utterly unprovoked attack by a mentally ill individual.

 

Possibly. Mentally ill, questionable. Under some form of mental stress or disturbance, most likely.

 

As such, I don't believe this incident is illustrative of prevailing societal attitudes toward the use of violence, and I'm struggling to understand why it's sparked that discussion.

 

This is where I could not disagree with you and Sean more strongly. I need to run out to work and can't explore this fully now, but please consider in my absence how:

 

Social and cultural systems lead to mental illness.

 

How drug policy (assuming that drug abuse may have been part of this, and frankly I'm thinking alcohol withdrawl here) may have contributed. Stated more broadly, how drug policy contributes to a culture of violence?

 

How our policies and treatment of the mentally ill contribute to violence and may have played a role.

 

I just totally don't accept the idea that we must accept that we have no control over and must simply accept with good graces the

 

random and utterly unprovoked attack by a mentally ill individual

.

 

Have a nice day, talk with you later.

 

Jan

[subvet]

The article says that the RCMP spent several hours negotiating with him before taking him into custody.

 

I am wondering what they were negotiating, and why they didn't simply go in and get him.

 

 

[Albert]

This act may be indicative of some societal or cultural influence on this individual. As such I suppose you could argue that one might disassemble the incident to the point of total understanding and thereby prevent an exact occurence of this sort (I doubt this but I'll concede it). What it won't explain is the myriad similar events that have plagued all societies for all times. You wouldn't need to scratch very hard or very deep to find similarly perplexing examples that have nothing to do with our current littany of societal woes.

 

I am completely comfortable accepting that there are countless things we have no control over. I can accept that we humans are not likely to "know the mind of God" to put it as some prominent physicists have (at least in the near term).

[Dave McReynolds]

The article says that the RCMP spent several hours negotiating with him before taking him into custody.

 

I am wondering what they were negotiating, and why they didn't simply go in and get him.

 

 

They had him contained; he wasn't in a position to hurt anyone else. Why not try to take him in a way that minimized risk to those who would arrest him?

 

On the topic raised by Twisties, I don't know if there is an overall increase in violence today. I'm sure it has its peaks and valleys. It would be hard to say there is more violence today than there was during the civil war, when there were 620,000 Americans killed by other Americans in the space of about four years. To put that in perspective, however, smoking kills more than twice that many Americans today in the same period of time.

 

However, whether there is more or less violence today than in some earlier period is of less interest to me than what we can do to reduce the violence we have. I think Twisties touched on both of these points, but I will add my two cents worth also.

 

I think a lot of violence is caused by the substitution of the prison system for adequate mental health care. People are usually identified as having mental health problems before they commit serious crimes. People with mental health problems commit crimes they wouldn't otherwise commit if they had adequate mental health care, which might include confinement in a mental health facility. Generally, prison worsens their mental conditions, and they commit more and worse crimes when they are released. Laws passed during the '60's made it difficult or impossible to confine mentally ill people against their will, perhaps in recognition that many of the facilities that confined them were no better than prisons anyway. But in passing these laws, they just turned the mentally ill out onto the streets, making the problem worse.

 

Our drug laws have created a criminal underculture, similar to the criminal underculture that was created by the alcohol laws during prohibition. This underculture breeds violence as the only means available to enforce their "laws," since they obviously don't have recourse to the courts to solve their contractural disputes. As the violence associated with the alcohol trade virtually dried up with repeal of prohibition, I think the violence associated with the drug trade would virtually dry up if the trade were legitimized and regulated.

[TyTass]

Jan,

 

I understand that you are running out the door and you have presented only a short synopsis of your viewpoint ... that our (western) society is degrading and is the cause these sorts of events. But please acknowledge the fact that there are two parts to your argument:

 

1. Western Society is degrading

2. Western Society causes these sorts of event

 

If you don't wish to argue both, then retract one of them. It's silly (at least) or perhaps even disingenuous to suggest that people must accept your base premise (#1) as an axiom. No one with even a minor active interest in historical non-fiction would accept that statement as fact, and your unwillingness to debate it suggests you exaggerated (at least) to give weight to your second arguement.

 

It's quite apparent that your second point is the one you are actually willing to discuss or debate in the first place, so why not drop the first?

[JoeMc]

There was another one yesterday. Some loco jumped on a GH bus and repeatedly stabbed some poor soul multiple times. Just do a drive-by any GH Station in any big city and have a look at most of those loitering in the area.

 

I rode them a lot when I was younger, but not any more.

[wolcott]

The article says that the RCMP spent several hours negotiating with him before taking him into custody.

 

I am wondering what they were negotiating, and why they didn't simply go in and get him.

 

 

They had him contained; he wasn't in a position to hurt anyone else. Why not try to take him in a way that minimized risk to those who would arrest him?

 

On the topic raised by Twisties, I don't know if there is an overall increase in violence today. I'm sure it has its peaks and valleys. It would be hard to say there is more violence today than there was during the civil war, when there were 620,000 Americans killed by other Americans in the space of about four years. To put that in perspective, however, smoking kills more than twice that many Americans today in the same period of time.

 

However, whether there is more or less violence today than in some earlier period is of less interest to me than what we can do to reduce the violence we have. I think Twisties touched on both of these points, but I will add my two cents worth also.

 

I think a lot of violence is caused by the substitution of the prison system for adequate mental health care. People are usually identified as having mental health problems before they commit serious crimes. People with mental health problems commit crimes they wouldn't otherwise commit if they had adequate mental health care, which might include confinement in a mental health facility. Generally, prison worsens their mental conditions, and they commit more and worse crimes when they are released. Laws passed during the '60's made it difficult or impossible to confine mentally ill people against their will, perhaps in recognition that many of the facilities that confined them were no better than prisons anyway. But in passing these laws, they just turned the mentally ill out onto the streets, making the problem worse.

 

Our drug laws have created a criminal underculture, similar to the criminal underculture that was created by the alcohol laws during prohibition. This underculture breeds violence as the only means available to enforce their "laws," since they obviously don't have recourse to the courts to solve their contractural disputes. As the violence associated with the alcohol trade virtually dried up with repeal of prohibition, I think the violence associated with the drug trade would virtually dry up if the trade were legitimized and regulated.

 

I agree with Dave. well said.

[Twisties]

I've never said anything that was intended to imply, nor anything I can see that does imply "degradation", if by the word you mean a worsening of violence in recent times. If anyone is getting that from my posts, please consider it retracted.

 

My point is that we are not the least violent society of our times, and that our benchmark or aspiration should be to become just that.

 

As to the second point, some here are arguing the incident at hand is the act of a madman and not related to our culture. Dave McReynolds has, in my absence begun to lay out a few of the cultural factors that I think may have been in play in this case or others.

 

I am not indicting our culture. I am suggesting that we need to ask ourselves, as David Baker put it, what the problem is? To me this means what aspects of our culture are fueling violence.

 

I think Dave McReynolds brings up excellent points. I could probably go on for hours amplifying them, but they are sufficient to my basic position that cultural conditions are involved.

 

What of it then, can we join in a discussion of society's role, or are we at impasse?

 

Jan

 

[Matts_12GS]

My point is that we are not the least violent society of our times, and that our benchmark or aspiration should be to become just that.

 

Why?

[Twisties]

My point is that we are not the least violent society of our times, and that our benchmark or aspiration should be to become just that.

 

Why?

 

ROFL LMAO

[TyTass]

I've never said anything that was intended to imply, nor anything I can see that does imply "degradation", if by the word you mean a worsening of violence in recent times. If anyone is getting that from my posts, please consider it retracted.

Hmmm. Apparently I did indeed confuse KenH's remarks with yours - where he had said that we've become more violent over the past 100 years. My error.

 

My point is that we are not the least violent society of our times, and that our benchmark or aspiration should be to become just that.

To understand you further, would hold this as our highest ideal, or would you wish us to balance it with other ideals (freedom, justice, etc.). If so, what else? (FYI: I'm not implying that these are necessarily in every case mutually exclusive.)

 

As to the second point, some here are arguing the incident at hand is the act of a madman and not related to our culture. Dave McReynolds has, in my absence begun to lay out a few of the cultural factors that I think may have been in play in this case or others.

 

I am not indicting our culture. I am suggesting that we need to ask ourselves, as David Baker put it, what the problem is? To me this means what aspects of our culture are fueling violence.

 

I think Dave McReynolds brings up excellent points. I could probably go on for hours amplifying them, but they are sufficient to my basic position that cultural conditions are involved.

 

What of it then, can we join in a discussion of society's role, or are we at impasse?

 

Jan

But I think I took David differently than you did. I am questioning at a basic level ... what percentage of occurence would constitute a "problem" that requires a societal response? Clearly, it is an unfortunate occurrence, and that alone warrants investigation by legal and medical authorities. But do we know, and can then prove, that all of "these" unfortunate events are cause by the same issues in western culture? Certainly not my area of expertise but I think it quite obvious that debate will continue in appropriate intellectual circles for quite some time.

 

So are we at an impasse in the short-term and can make no progress? It depends on what we're talking about here, doesn't it? Are we talking about increasing welfare & other forms of aid, increasing efforts to curb drug trafficing, vigorously investigating corrupt politicians who allow drug-lords to operate, making psychological testing in compulsory in state funded schools, suspending the rights of search and seizure, coming up with a systemn of qualification for parenting, changing our system of government and the free market, what?

[Twisties]

Originally Posted By: Twisties

My point is that we are not the least violent society of our times, and that our benchmark or aspiration should be to become just that.

To understand you further, would hold this as our highest ideal, or would you wish us to balance it with other ideals (freedom, justice, etc.). If so, what else? (FYI: I'm not implying that these are necessarily in every case mutually exclusive.)

 

I'm just suggesting that we recognize we have a problem and inviting you all to explore it with me.

 

To be clear, and to reply to your's and David's earlier comment more thoroughly, we had a very protracted discussion about violence last fall in which we explored our relative violence to other societies. I believe the conclusion of that thread was that there is more than enough violence to go around and has been. Also that the discussion of violence is relevant at the personal and societal/institutional levels, as we have already seen mentioned in this current thread. That thread never moved beyond this level of discussion of our place in the violence scale. So, to try to avoid a repeat, and move the debate forward, I've changed tactics and suggested that rather than discuss our place in the violence hierarchy, lets consider a vison of what what we should be, what we could be. So I've proposed as a benchmark the least violent of modern societies. The purpose and intent is to further the discussion towards recognition that we are violent, and to try to begin to approach identifying causes.

 

However, you ask a reasonable question, is achieving reduced violence my highest goal, or am I proposing balance. I'm just proposing we talk about the problem as if it's a problem, but since you ask: No, just a goal. It does no good if we are all drugged zombies in a slave society, so it can't be a highest goal.

 

As to your other comments: I don't have any solutions to propose at this time. I did in the prior thread, and they were uhhmmmm "violently" rejected by many on this board. Rather propose solutions, I'm suggesting we try to identify causes.

 

Most of what you suggest below would not be my instinctual approach, but until we agree on a problem statement, it is pre-mature to consider causes.

 

I'll ask again, not just you TyTass, are you guys ready to admit we need to reduce violence and discuss it's causes in our society?

 

Jan

[David]

Jan, I'd guess that most of any progress we'd make on the anti-violence front will come at a very micro level, between parent and child. It's the sum total of millions of choices, big and small, and very little is going to be accomplished if pushed from the outside. Education will help. Certainly mental care. But in the end, not much.

 

From a philosophical standpoint, I'd point the finger at the anonymous nature of our urban living arrangements, devoid of the fabric that held society more closely together in the past, before mobility became a way of life.

[AdventurePoser]

{quote]

 

It's been suggested before that a "culture of passivity" exists among Canadian men. Whether that's uniquely true of Canadians I don't know.

 

I think it's the mass consumption of ketchup flavored potato chips that encourages this passivity...

 

Steve in So Cal

[Bullett]

I was really bothered by this until I read this part..

 

"It's not something that happens regularly on a bus,"

 

 

We never had this sort of thing in Mayberry..

 

Yeah, but if they did (if I recall correctly) Sheriff Andy never let you put bullets in your gun, anyway.

[Boffin]

 

From a philosophical standpoint, I'd point the finger at the anonymous nature of our urban living arrangements, devoid of the fabric that held society more closely together in the past, before mobility became a way of life.

 

I think this is a very valid point but to develop it further I think we need to separate violence between societies (wars and similar) from violence within societies (murder, rape, robbery).

 

The former is I believe a modern expression of primitive tribalism and even quite placid and gentle people can be internally motivated to take part in that group violence.

 

Internal societal violence is also in part driven by tribalism, that is most clearly sen in gang violence. I believe people need to feel part of their society, and if society in general rejects them, they form their own closed societies that declare a war of sorts against the society that rejected them (either explicitly or implicitly) and against the rival mini-societies forming round them, competing for territory.

 

Leaving aside maniacal attacks, which by their very nature tend to randomness and have always existed; what about non-gang murders?

 

Most murders in the UK are still domestic, marital and familial disputes flashing into bloody tragedy in the heat of a moment - often fueled by intoxication. Street robbery is however, becoming more common and more violent.

I think the reasons for this are the lack of fear of censure. In older, smaller communities where the same families have lived for generations, young folk know that any mischief will get home before they do. They know they will be caught and be punished. This trains them at an early age to conform to societal norms. In modern society there is almost a fear of children, and we never know who their parents are to report the misbehaviour, so this training no longer exists.

 

Also lost, it the stigma of punishment - sub-cultures exist that revel in the notoriety.

 

In short, I believe that it is the fear of being caught, leading to punishment, leading to stigmatisation that deters crime of all types, violence included.

 

We no longer have fear of being caught, so the punishment has little impact on deterrence. If caught, it is no longer a social stigma to be punished.

 

Our societies are too large to be inclusive, so we end up with many small sub-cultures. This leads to inter-tribal violence.

 

Andy

[Dave McReynolds]

I think this is a very valid point but to develop it further I think we need to separate violence between societies (wars and similar) from violence within societies (murder, rape, robbery).

 

It's really difficult for me to make that distinction. Subsequently, you said:

 

The former [between societies] is I believe a modern expression of primitive tribalism and even quite placid and gentle people can be internally motivated to take part in that group violence.

 

Internal societal violence is also in part driven by tribalism, that is most clearly sen in gang violence. I believe people need to feel part of their society, and if society in general rejects them, they form their own closed societies that declare a war of sorts against the society that rejected them (either explicitly or implicitly) and against the rival mini-societies forming round them, competing for territory.

 

Looking at gangs, otherwise "placid and gentle people" may be motivated to join a gang out of self-preservation where they feel that the traditional forms of protection offered by society are inadequate to protect them, and those people may subsequently become quite violent, similar to people who may join an organized army.

 

Looking a governments, the Nazi's of the '30's certainly did their share of "murder, rape, and robbery," and I wouldn't exclude your own government from such charges in their various forrays into France in the 1300's-1400's (My government, of course, would never stoop to such a thing, and all the Native Americans are just lying about it when they say we did ).

 

Certainly those on the receiving end of violence don't particularly care if the violence originated from an officially declared war or a mugging on the street.

 

In our current conflict, we try to make a distinction between "lawful" POW's who may have been captured in a declared war, and "unlawful detainees" who may have been captured for plotting or carrying out terrorist attacks. I have no sympathies with anyone planning a terrorist attack against my country, but then neither would I have any sympathies with anyone whose government declares war against my country. I'm sure the distinction is lost on the terrorists, and to a great degree, it is lost on me also.

 

So while I certainly understand that there is a distinction and many important differences between organized combat and unorganized crime, the violence associated with them isn't one of them, IMHO.

 

And as for the underlying question we're supposed to be discussing here, should we aim to be the least violent society, I am ambivalent. One part of me says that would be great and peaceful, while another part of me says the greatness and peacefulness would be shortlived and we would soon just become another footnote to history after we were overrun by a more violent society than ours.

[TyTass]

Like Boffin (Andy), I too see a distinction between international and intranational violence. I also agree with his notion of tribalism within and without national borders. Perhaps that's just because that's how I categorize things.

 

At the very least, I see the distinction now and until at some point in the future most nations agree on some similar principles of human rights and international law. I am not a lawyer and have at best a lay understanding (and am about to prove my ignorance ), but it seems to me that international law is perhaps the most poorly definined and/or the most disregarded body of law. And since it's simply not possible at the present time to get the world to agree on rights under law (though we should not give up discussion and debate), I don't want to tie the two together such that we pause on what can be achieved in our respective countries. (We do what we can do.)

 

However, that said if we do chose to recognize an increase in tribal violence in say America (gang-related violence) I agree that annonimity does seem to be the root cause of that violence. The lack of consequence has given strength to those who would choose to live outside of laws of our society in that they would impede another's rights to life, liberty, and their pursuit of hapiness. Is it worthwhile to assume there is another course of action to curb this sort of violence besides the Law? Yes, but not at the expense of this very basic interpretation of Law - or even to allow a trend of diminishment to continue. (Am I for a police state ... no? but I don't have the answers here either.)

 

As for other types of intranational violence, that of the more random type, I do believe that a society can orient itself to provide care and services that might well reduce the numbers or the more horrific consequences (at least), but there is a cost in not only dollars, but a measure of freedom for all involved down that path. I'm not merely talking about any discomfort to the financial freedom of the taxpayer (no simple thing that subject either) but the rights of the "potential" perpetrator of such violent acts.

 

We often like to think that there are tell-tale signs that will announce that a person is about to go off the deep end and will do something horrific. In the "old days" of the dark 1950's, when we (arguably) didn't have as much of this sort of violence, it was common to institutionalize those who exhibited borderline behaviors, notably "before" they did themselves or anyone else harm (in the end subjecting them to all sorts of cruelty of a medical system in it's infancy).

 

As the nation continued it's path toward social maturity(?), we came to recognize the rights of even those people to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness. Many people of questionable mental faculties walk around us everyday, and they often exhibit the "danger signs" but don't act upon them. Many of these people are under the care of qualified competant authority, but until they actually commit a crime, they are now permitted the freedom to walk around while exhibiting all sorts of irrational behavoir. Thus, I think some of the increase in this type of violence is a matter of paying the price for playing it closer to edge in the name of rights and freedom. And I for one am willing to let that occur continue lest we go back to the days of unfounded commitments to sanitariums based on what "we" think a person may do.

 

Does society actually cause these and other types of intranational violence? I don't know and think the jury is still out on that. Thus, I'm not willing to accept that conclusion simply because the of socio/psycho sciences are still in their infancy ... and are soft sciences to boot. Patience seems the best watchword to me.

 

Now, for the subject of drug-induced violence ... that's much, much harder (and easier). I think we have to be willing to go further than we ever went before. We have to be willing to scrap our ridiculous support for the War on Drugs, which has served to accomplish little to stem the flow or creation of new narcotics, but has at least served to get many politicians elected (and perhaps made many of them wealthy at the same time). It seems to me those billions could be better spent in management of legalization and in education and treatment.

 

Back to you, Jan. I would assume you disagree wholly - or with most at least. Am I correct? What changes would you'd like to see?

[Twisties]

Craig,

 

Sorry I've taken so long to respond. You'll see my position on drugs and few other things in that other thread that's raging today. You know which one.

 

All in all I don't really think I disagree with much you said.

 

I don't necessarily see a link between reduction in violence and loss of freedom (depends on a lot of things), and I certainly don't see a link between reduction in violence and our vulnerability to foreign attack as some have suggested.

 

You know I just don't have any solutions. To be a good solution it has to be something many of us can buy into. It has to meet our overall needs as a society, so that is why I was hoping people with some diverse points of view would try an honest discussion, but I guess we're too polarized for that.

 

Since that discussion clearly isn't happening, and you have asked a couple of times, I'll go ahead and lay out my views. I think the best approaches are these. But I'm by no means locked into these, and I'm not sure they are good solutions because they may not be broadly acceptable:

 

1. Really good education for all.

2. I don't know how to do this, it may not be achievable, but a dramatic reduction in violence as depicted in entertainment.

3. This goes to the tensions you explore below, but at some point intervention must be warranted. I think that point should be when a person requires social services as a result of their mental state, e.g. is not self supporting, street person, becomes violent, etc. I have personal experience with a family member with whom under present rules we can not intervene, and it's pretty awful. Let me be clear, no reasonable person could spend more than half an hour with her without concluding she is insane, incapable of caring for herself, and in need of help. But we can not force it.

4. Overall a more permissive, more laid back society.

5. Early intervention in violence, e.g. bullying, pulling the wings off flys, torturing snakes, whatever. Treat these things seriously when they are kids.

 

Jan