San Fransisco Giants

[philip964]

https://www.tmz.com/2022/05/27/giants-m ... -shooting/

Manager will not come out on field for National Anthem until this country changes.

He will have to wait til November.

Even LA is considering a conservative mayor.

[Deitz83]

Well, America will Never Ever Change. Shootings of children in schools, on playgrounds, adults in movie theaters , night clubs and grocery stores are part of the American DNA. Sad but True.

Staying off the filed for 3 minutes only gives him time to plan for the game.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Disagree; not in our dna. This is all late 1970' s and up.

[puma guy]

There was a time when every home in the United States had at least one gun. History doesn't record rampant indiscriminate murders from that time period.

[srothstein]

Disagree; not in our dna. This is all late 1970' s and up.

I disagree with your timeline. The first school shooting I was personally aware of happened in the 1971 in Philadelphia. the first one Wikipedia lists is at a law school in 1840. The first one where a secondary school student shot another student was in 1860 (and includes a dispute over bullying activity). The first mass shooting I see in their list was in 1898 with five shot fatally and others wounded.

And while not a shooting, I would be remiss if I did not point out that one of the worst attacks occurred in Bath Michigan in 1927, with 44 fatalities and 58 more wounded. But that was a bombing, not a shooting.

I truly believe that the violence is endemic to our culture. This country was founded in violence, grew by violent means, and survived several wars by being more violent. If history teaches us anything, it is that, contrary to some sayings, violence is used in the US to settle grievances all the time and settles them well. Our government did it in the 1860's and other times. People have been doing it in our country for as long as our country has been around. Possibly the most famous incident of settling individual grievances in our history was the Burr-Hamilton duel but there have been more since then. Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Billie the Kid, and many others became folk heroes by using violence against institutions viewed by most people of the time as corrupt.

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

[Deitz83]

Disagree; not in our dna. This is all late 1970' s and up.

I disagree with your timeline. The first school shooting I was personally aware of happened in the 1971 in Philadelphia. the first one Wikipedia lists is at a law school in 1840. The first one where a secondary school student shot another student was in 1860 (and includes a dispute over bullying activity). The first mass shooting I see in their list was in 1898 with five shot fatally and others wounded.

And while not a shooting, I would be remiss if I did not point out that one of the worst attacks occurred in Bath Michigan in 1927, with 44 fatalities and 58 more wounded. But that was a bombing, not a shooting.

I truly believe that the violence is endemic to our culture. This country was founded in violence, grew by violent means, and survived several wars by being more violent. If history teaches us anything, it is that, contrary to some sayings, violence is used in the US to settle grievances all the time and settles them well. Our government did it in the 1860's and other times. People have been doing it in our country for as long as our country has been around. Possibly the most famous incident of settling individual grievances in our history was the Burr-Hamilton duel but there have been more since then. Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Billie the Kid, and many others became folk heroes by using violence against institutions viewed by most people of the time as corrupt.

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

Well stated.

[puma guy]

Disagree; not in our dna. This is all late 1970' s and up.

I disagree with your timeline. The first school shooting I was personally aware of happened in the 1971 in Philadelphia. the first one Wikipedia lists is at a law school in 1840. The first one where a secondary school student shot another student was in 1860 (and includes a dispute over bullying activity). The first mass shooting I see in their list was in 1898 with five shot fatally and others wounded.

And while not a shooting, I would be remiss if I did not point out that one of the worst attacks occurred in Bath Michigan in 1927, with 44 fatalities and 58 more wounded. But that was a bombing, not a shooting.

I truly believe that the violence is endemic to our culture. This country was founded in violence, grew by violent means, and survived several wars by being more violent. If history teaches us anything, it is that, contrary to some sayings, violence is used in the US to settle grievances all the time and settles them well. Our government did it in the 1860's and other times. People have been doing it in our country for as long as our country has been around. Possibly the most famous incident of settling individual grievances in our history was the Burr-Hamilton duel but there have been more since then. Bonnie and Clyde, Jesse James, Billie the Kid, and many others became folk heroes by using violence against institutions viewed by most people of the time as corrupt.

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

Well stated.

The Bath school bomber planned to use his rifle to kill in the aftermath of the explosion. He was armed with a Bolt action Winchester, probably a 30.06.
From Wikipedia:

Kehoe drove up to the school about half an hour after the first explosion. He saw Superintendent Huyck and summoned him over to his truck. Charles Hawson testified at the inquest that he saw the two men grapple over some type of long gun before Kehoe detonated the dynamite stored in his truck,[36] immediately killing himself; Huyck; Nelson McFarren, a retired farmer;[37] and Cleo Clayton, an 8-year-old second grader. Clayton had survived the first blast and then wandered out of the school building; he was killed by fragmentation from the exploding vehicle.

[C-dub]

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

I would say that is not in our culture, but rather in every humans DNA and most if not all animals. It would be the instinct to survive. Even the smallest creature, in order to survive, will fight as best it can.

Suppressing that instinct is what some people aspire to achieve their entire lives. Some people thrive on it and some are able to manage or control it in measured responses. We, humans, don't have the ability yet to stop violence without using violence. That really bothers some folks. The people of the US may seem to have a propensity for violence, but when we emerged as the most powerful nation in the world after WWII a big chunk of the world looked toward us to keep the order. Once you're on top there's only one direction to go and others will keep trying to help push you in that direction one way or another (directly or indirectly).

Before WWI we were still shell shocked from the Civil War and still just wanted to be left alone and let the Europeans fight amongst themselves. Then after WWI and into the depression our isolationism grew. If the Pearl Harbor attack hadn't occurred I don't know if or how we would have gotten into WWII. Anyway, ever since we've been the big dog. Some see us a bullies, while most see us as saviors. Can't please everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is that you can't rest on your laurels or you won't be the big dog very long. Si vis pacem, para bellum! Such a true statement that so many overlook. Even the neutral Swiss prepare for war. Although, I understand that recently they have begun to question whether or not to request membership in NATO. We cannot have a military of pacifists. There must be people willing to get violent when required. It's just that when you have a population of 330+M there is going to be a bunch that are either unwilling or cannot control that violence.

[Deitz83]

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

I would say that is not in our culture, but rather in every humans DNA and most if not all animals. It would be the instinct to survive. Even the smallest creature, in order to survive, will fight as best it can.

Suppressing that instinct is what some people aspire to achieve their entire lives. Some people thrive on it and some are able to manage or control it in measured responses. We, humans, don't have the ability yet to stop violence without using violence. That really bothers some folks. The people of the US may seem to have a propensity for violence, but when we emerged as the most powerful nation in the world after WWII a big chunk of the world looked toward us to keep the order. Once you're on top there's only one direction to go and others will keep trying to help push you in that direction one way or another (directly or indirectly).

Before WWI we were still shell shocked from the Civil War and still just wanted to be left alone and let the Europeans fight amongst themselves. Then after WWI and into the depression our isolationism grew. If the Pearl Harbor attack hadn't occurred I don't know if or how we would have gotten into WWII. Anyway, ever since we've been the big dog. Some see us a bullies, while most see us as saviors. Can't please everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is that you can't rest on your laurels or you won't be the big dog very long. Si vis pacem, para bellum! Such a true statement that so many overlook. Even the neutral Swiss prepare for war. Although, I understand that recently they have begun to question whether or not to request membership in NATO. We cannot have a military of pacifists. There must be people willing to get violent when required. It's just that when you have a population of 330+M there is going to be a bunch that are either unwilling or cannot control that violence.

Amen!

[srothstein]

While not in our individual DNA (I think), it is definitely in whatever makes up our culture's DNA.

I would say that is not in our culture, but rather in every humans DNA and most if not all animals. It would be the instinct to survive. Even the smallest creature, in order to survive, will fight as best it can.

Suppressing that instinct is what some people aspire to achieve their entire lives. Some people thrive on it and some are able to manage or control it in measured responses. We, humans, don't have the ability yet to stop violence without using violence. That really bothers some folks. The people of the US may seem to have a propensity for violence, but when we emerged as the most powerful nation in the world after WWII a big chunk of the world looked toward us to keep the order. Once you're on top there's only one direction to go and others will keep trying to help push you in that direction one way or another (directly or indirectly).

Before WWI we were still shell shocked from the Civil War and still just wanted to be left alone and let the Europeans fight amongst themselves. Then after WWI and into the depression our isolationism grew. If the Pearl Harbor attack hadn't occurred I don't know if or how we would have gotten into WWII. Anyway, ever since we've been the big dog. Some see us a bullies, while most see us as saviors. Can't please everyone.

The problem, as I see it, is that you can't rest on your laurels or you won't be the big dog very long. Si vis pacem, para bellum! Such a true statement that so many overlook. Even the neutral Swiss prepare for war. Although, I understand that recently they have begun to question whether or not to request membership in NATO. We cannot have a military of pacifists. There must be people willing to get violent when required. It's just that when you have a population of 330+M there is going to be a bunch that are either unwilling or cannot control that violence.

While you have a point that does apply to people, I would point out that animals are divided into prey and predator and may have different survival responses that are not violent. For example, the opossum is well known for playing dead when threatened instead of responding violently. Since people evolved as predators, you are correct that we do have a violent survival instinct. At least in theory (as I was taught) there are two instincts that humans have not yet evolved away from - the instinct for individual survival and the instinct for species survival. The instinct for individual survival usually shows up as a violent response to an existential threat. The instinct for species survival shows up when people rush to help others even when there is a threat to themselves in doing so (think of people jumping into swift water to assist a person drowning). Obviously, both of these instincts are still stronger in some people than in others or we would not have pacifists.

And for anyone not aware of the English translation of the Latin saying "Si vis pacem, para bellum!", it means "If you want peace, prepare for war." It is very good advice. The military translation of this is "Peace through superior firepower" and I do support that concept.

[The Annoyed Man]

It’s not so much that it’s in our DNA as it is that we live in a fallen world. Other countries with tightly controlled access to guns still have murderers who kill more than one other human. Cain slew Abel. It’s part of the human condition.

[C-dub]

Even plants will kill to survive. Some more viscously than others.