If it was metal detecters,the wanna be mass shooter would just pick a theatre or- a mall.

Of a thing in urban and progressive areas- socially they’re taught to respect women and diversity from the minute they’re in day care- so they’re better socialized, even if their parents are xenophobic not wits they’re exposed to the other much more and not angry and afraid of them.

All those kids shooting kids in Chicago, for instance, are taught to "respect women and diversity from the minute they're in day care."

It explains a lot of lyrics. A lot of the attitudes I see in transfers to suburbia from urban areas.

The guy who tried to stab another to death where I had done my student teaching? The very essence of respect for diversity. It's why he tried to kill somebody of the same ethnicity who called him a bad name the previous day.

I look elsewhere. This hypothesis is has explanatory adequacy for some data, but fails to have predictive adequacy for much of the data. Perhaps one approach is to narrow your definitions to include just those areas without a lot of kid-on-kid violence and see if it accounts for all the data that remains in the data set. However ...

Keep in mind that those kids that we defend and whose back we have, the ones evincing great respect for women and diversity and life ... They were socialized in essentially the same environment that Cruz was. So we have to look away from that particular environment and maybe at his biochemistry, maybe at the microenvironment that he lived in. Perhaps the effect is best described for now as just stochastic, for every x hundred thousand kids y% will be prone to this kind of violence, and what's left is to deny the opportunity. That could be gun restrictions, it could be metal detectors. But I don't see Cruz and Kasky as evincing the same behaviors because of some deterministic application of the same preset conditions in their childhood.

So perhaps instead of focusing on "us v them" the answer is "what's the sum of the influences over the kid's lifetime," since many move and even within "urban" and "progressive" areas there's a lot of turnover.

As for many urban schools, the question is why we sometimes get large death tolls on the streets but not in the school hallways, but only in some cities or locations--they're all urban, after all. Maybe the answer is metal detectors. Maybe it's something pro-active in the classroom. Maybe the answer is out-of-school suspension and truancy so that the kids prone to this are just gone and don't see their honor and dignity worth fighting for in the school when they can pick and choose other places outside of school.

I honestly don't know. But facile answers don't get us anywhere and when they're incorrect should be chucked asap in order to spend time looking for a better answer.

Someone who stabbed someone becasue they had a personal beef with another person? I guess you think that’s relevant- and rap lyrics too. LOL
I got the dog whistles, am not the one you’re calling w those, but thanks.

Some of my neighbors here in the country have lots of guns. I hardly ever knew people with guns during most of my life in city living.

But the NIH can't.

It's not "can we study it?" but "can we get the government to pay us to study it?" Many faculty only want to study things they can get grant money to study. University grants are special, and they get graded on their grant-pulling abilities.

I don't know that I have a big issue with the NIH grant limitation. I was around in '91 when the USSR flopped. I watched a panel that fall of all kinds of people who got grants based on the continuation of the USSR as a viable threat. Their analyses over the previous 5 years said the USSR had 20, 30 years, at least. Yet at the podium they all said they didn't say it was impossible. If you look on page 393, footnote 121, they allowed for the possibility--and one guy up there called them out on it. And he said that the scholars who had the opposite view were ignored, often had trouble getting their analyses published, and certainly weren't funded to produce the analyses.

So the collapse caught almost everybody by surprise, because the NHS and other governmental funding sources funded the appropriate research that seemed likely to the grant reviewers to provide correct and valid results. In other words, there was bias built into the system, a rather severe institutional blindness.

After that, the correct and appropriate research on Russia said that "if we do X, Russia will become a liberal democracy." Many thought otherwise. I thought the very idea ludicrous. But the "right-thinkers" got the grants. Those who were obviously so wrong as to not be worth funding didn't get funding--a tautology, to be sure. Oddly, very few products from grants yielded anything that predicted the current Russia, except maybe on page 591, footnote 238, where "it can't be completely ruled out that a strong nationalistic leader appealing to arch-conservative ideas of religion and grievance might come on the scene." (I'm mocking these works. They deserve to be mocked. Or studied for how *not* to build bias and blindness into the grant-funding process. Grants still work the same, by the way. Having decided that they weren't really wrong, the institutions moved on to additional inanity.)

In a field close to my heart the grant funders got it horribly wrong, and made sure that "right-thinkers" got the money, the professorships, the PhD funding, tenure, and promotions. If you were correct in hindsight, you found alternative uses for your Slavic degree, like maybe teaching high school.

The real question is, What's the appropriate gun-violence/public-health research that grant reviewers will think likely to provide correct and valid results? Because the answer to that question is the answer that the grants that get funded will produce, and it's a waste of money to pour money into a research program just to justify the foregone conclusion. This isn't science, which is less subject to this kind of bias (but still not completely immune).

It seems to be normalized that when things get tough the kids just stop going and become dropouts.

There is a significant amount of violence but it seems to be on the streets and gang-related than the "lone wolf shoots as many as possible then kills himself when the cops show up" kind.

I know at my kid's school (middle school) the place is locked up one school starts.