LMKS: Theories on Mental lllness, Race & Violence

maysay1 wrote: And I'm really not understanding this romanticized notion of gang members as survivalists who are killing just to eat/survive. This goes back to a thread we had a couple of months ago where I said that this is community supported violence. Gang members are generally not homeless or starving. They are being fed, clothed, and housed by their parents, grandparents, baby mamas, homies, lovers and friends. AND the government since many of them are eligible for and receive SSI, SDI, SNAP benefits, SS death benefits, and various forms of medicare. Either way, growing up impoverished, traumatized, with ptsd, and black male in america syndrome does not change the act of violence. A murder is a murder is a murder.

afrokock wrote: maysay1 wrote: And I'm really not understanding this romanticized notion of gang members as survivalists who are killing just to eat/survive. This goes back to a thread we had a couple of months ago where I said that this is community supported violence. Gang members are generally not homeless or starving. They are being fed, clothed, and housed by their parents, grandparents, baby mamas, homies, lovers and friends. AND the government since many of them are eligible for and receive SSI, SDI, SNAP benefits, SS death benefits, and various forms of medicare. Either way, growing up impoverished, traumatized, with ptsd, and black male in america syndrome does not change the act of violence. A murder is a murder is a murder. i thought the thread was about predictors of violence? or am i mistaken?

i do agree that men on average, have the propensity of violence, more so than women, across all races.

i didn't think this thread was simply about violence, but rather mass murders of innocent strangers and why that seems to be the exclusive territory of white middle class men.

but then your comparison to the two individuals is wrong.
If I remember anything about comparing one set of info to another.. you are suposed to have only one variable.

so you can not compare a man who goes into a school kills many-- and then (for the sake of this argument doesn't commit suicide)  and is then caught and jailed.

to a man-- who has been on the loose for 10 years killing ppl at a continuous rate.

if both men were caught on their first crime..
than who has more vics? the white man who one who killed 20 ppl or the black man who who killed 1?

and likewise... if they both were not caught after their crime.. and were allowed to continue their killing sprees for 10 years?
which criminal has more?
the man who kills 20 at a time?
or the man who accumulates 2/yr?

maysay1 wrote: Gang members shoot directly at children and adults they have absolutely no connection all the time. The "unintended casualties" are not unintended at all. Y'all know that and I know that.