Presumably, crimes are committed by people in whom Means, Motive, Opportunity, and Low-Inhibition-toward-violence all intersect.
Since degree-of-inhibition against violence is difficult to measure or quantify, most detectives pursue the first three elements when attempting to solve crimes. Their flow-chart is to find the people who had Means, Motive and Opportunity and then start checking alibis.
Let's look at them one at a time
Any man who amounts to anything has enemies. And the quality of one's enemies is a better measure of his character than the qualities of his friends. There is never a shortage of people with "Motives".
Among those men who count as enemies, there are almost always powerful men/women who can kill with their hands, or with a sharpened pencil, a speeding motor-vehicle or with a sly addition of poison to the victim's diet. So there is rarely a shortage of Means...heck, people have been and continue to be killed with well-aimed stones.
Humans are (probably) much easier to kill than Whitetail Deer because Opportunity avails itself at every turn. Very few of us wish to live our lives as hermits or as super-spies.
The factor that makes murder a rare crime is not due to the lack of any of the first three factors but because MOST people have powerful inhibitions toward acting violently.
MOST, but not all. People who have acted violently in the past are much more likely to act violently in the future than people with no history of violence. Once breached, the barrier is much easier to breach again.
People who have been institutionalized for mental illness are more likely to act violently than people who have never been institutionalized, "danger to self-or-others" being a key characteristic of those who have been involuntarily institutionalized. If it helps, think of "Suicide" as a special case of "Homicide". Somebody who has attempted suicide is statistically more likely to be capable of homicide.
People who are addicted to drugs are known to have impaired judgement and reduced impulse control. They are also more likely to engage in violence than people who are not drug addicts.
People who are committed to the overthrow of the foundations of the society are more likely to commit violence than those who do not seek to overthrow society. In a similar way, people who have pledge their allegiance to violent groups like gangs are also more likely to commit violence.
So, classical, Western Civilization considers individual responsibility at the linchpin of cause-effect, consequence-responsibility. This is not done blindly. Certain privileges (like owning a firearm) are denied to those groups of people who have demonstrated membership in the high-risk groups listed above.
Exceptions
There are weak-minded people who are exceptionally susceptible to outside influence. If a person incites violence by feeding weak-minded people lists of "targets" and engages in a relentless campaign of dehumanizing those targets, then the person inciting violence is also culpable if/when those people (or their property) are attacked.
Those who manipulated weak-minded people are also "pulling the trigger".
The prevalence of violence is a complex issue. In some societies/cultures violence is more normal than others.
ReplyDeleteIQ tends to be a factor. Low IQ people tend to act violently impulsively while smarter people tend to engage in violence for a deliberate purpose and if they calculate they can succeed. Fear of consequences is also a factor. Lower risk of being caught and punished will lead to more violence. Lower IQ means a disconnect between the notion of actions resulting in consequences. Another factor is social pressure. People in a group are more like to go along with violent acts than when alone. It's a subject sociologists have studied with no clear answers.
Are you watching the Tesla attacks, Joe? Those aren’t low IQ pavement apes, battle hardened terrorists or psychotic monsters - they’re old fart grey hairs like us! They drive nice cars, dress like humans… but they’ve been whipped into a frenzy. The impression I get is that although they obviously aren’t that bright…from their perspective they’re freedom fighters and patriots…
ReplyDeleteThere were only a couple instances in my life where I felt like I was capable of violence. They all initiated from highly unexpected sources in surprisingly predictable ways.
ReplyDeleteWhen I got my pistol permit the instructor talked about it. Advised you to spend some time thinking and pondering, when would I actually decide to use this? What would be the line in the sand? Lethal force is no joke, legally speaking nor otherwise.
Blogger is not letting me respond to individual comments.
ReplyDeleteFilthie: I am following the attacks on Tesla. I am also watching the logical contortions of the Progressives; something on the order of "He provoked us into doing this." with "He" being either Musk or Trump.
Oddly, if you changed the context to a woman getting raped because she wore a certain kind of clothing or because she responded to a person on Tinder, you would be, rightfully shouted down as barbaric.
Arson seems to be their tool of choice. Fire is a weapon of mass destruction. The firebombing of Tokyo on March 9 and 10 of 1945 killed an estimated 100,000 people and left ten times that number homeless. Anybody who burns any electric vehicle that is parked within 20 feet of any other vehicles is potentially unleashing a chain-reaction. They should be charged as domestic terrorists who deployed weapons of mass destruction.
You read it here first.
Roger that!
DeleteI'd suggest that allowing nay glorifying those that act out at such media driven Telsa "Flaming but mostly Peaceful Protests" are encouraging others that still have some shred of restraint.
ReplyDeleteI'd point out the Tick Tok videos and the not so bright that decide to do one better video.
It is probably relevant to note the previous 4 years had very little reaction to this sort of violence, which at some level allows it to normalize. It becomes a different game in the world of enforcement.
ReplyDeleteJust one little nitpick. Firearm ownership is not a privilege like a driver's license. It is a right. Language matters and the small erosions have brought us to where we are with firearm ownership. The second amendment doesn't leave any carve outs and I believe 99% or more of current gun laws are unconstitutional. And yet, here we are.
ReplyDeleteToo many have never been punched in the nose. They've 'lived' in the basement, using the anonymity of the net to avoid consequences. When they decide to physically act out, they don't believe anyone will actually counter them. Note that few of them try that in Red states... and those usually are DRT.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to that metaphor, both literally and rhetorically. The mollycoddled suburbanite kids that have graduated college, made professional careers and started families, have never once personally experienced violence, i.e. being punched in the nose. Quite literally. Bullying was outlawed in school and instances 'nipped in the bud'. Never spent 7 periods waiting with dread until the 'meeting at the flagpole after school'... Their jobs are at institutions or non-profits where nobody ever gets fired, so they've never experienced those negative emotions or consequences. They received participation trophies in athletic competitions. They have-not experienced pain in their lives at almost any stage.
DeleteERJ leaves out one segment which we increasingly see as the perpetuators of violence. Filthie hints at these. They are them who are fed a constant dose of mind altering drugs.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the drugs themselves may only be a part; coupled with the constancy, that then becomes enough to trip that wire. Too, fed a hysterical word, they are flung into a contrived motive. Most alarming, this seems on purpose.
Joe mentioned them. Those that are set up until someone else pulls that trigger.
Delete