I'm not even responding to your statements re: single mothers because I think that could fill pages of debate by itself. I have children who I love deeply. I'm sure that I wasn't the perfect father, but I tried. I can tell you that during their teen years, while good kids, they (like me a generation before) did some very dumb things. Holding parents responsible without limit for their kids does not strike me as correct. If that is going to happen, there should be at least some showing of abusive or neglectful parenting as a threshold.
Well indeed, that's why we keep avoiding this topic, even though it needs to be addressed, and more people are beginning to recognize that fact. Doing some "dumb" things is (in all likelihood) (and a lot of us have done "dumb" things) quite different than mass murdering people. In that scenario, there's a massive failure of parenting.
The reports are all over the 'net: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-op-mass-shootings-fatherless-homes-20180227-story.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/02/27/of_27_deadliest_mass_shooters_26_of_them_were_fatherless_435596.html https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/missing-fathers-and-americas-broken-boys-the-vast-majority-of-mass-shooters-come-from-broken-homes https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/18/after-school-shooting-parents-blame/349371002/ My 90% fig, which I’ll admit was off the top of my head, came from the 26 of 27 families stat, which I had heard before. It is referenced below. But the Crisis magazine article seems to take issue with that stat. “My article mistakenly reported that of a list of 27 deadliest mass shooters in U.S. history (compiled by CNN), 26 came from fatherless families. That is not accurate. As I write, the two sources where I originally read this inaccuracy are still posted with the same headline, stating flatly that “26 of 27 shooters came from fatherless families.” https://www.crisismagazine.com/2018/fatherless-shooters-clarification-data (But--the author of the Crisis magazine article is about as clear as mud as to what he is actually trying to say.) But whether the 26 out of 27 stat is off, or the 90% stat is somewhat off, I think is quibbling. I would assert that the real cause of these shootings is the one I have suggested. The links, in my view, make that clear. Edited to add: the author of the Crisis magazine article does say this: "At this point, however, what is clear is the vast majority of shooters came from broken families without a consistent biological father throughout their rearing and development. Very few had good, stable, present dads. Yes, pick apart those previous two sentences if you would like, but most readers will get the point."
"(why stop at 18? Let's make parents responsible for all bad acts of their kids for their entire life if the cause was really poor parenting.)" Well, the reason would be that at 18 people suddenly become adults (I know, I know). If the basic reason that the school shootings are happening is bad parenting, why can't we go to the root/heart of the matter? I would say that's the problem with our society and politics -- we're address symptoms and manifestations of problems and causes, but we leave the root and heart of the matter alone. I'm not sure whether that's because most of our society cannot discern the real causes of problems -- or if it's that our politics won't allow it. But, the US is not the only society with this problem.
I guess where we disagree is that I accept that parenting may be the cause or a cause in some cases. In others, not. I think it is simplistic and pretty damning for a parent or parents who tried their best to be labeled as always responsible if their child does something horrific.
Well, I would concede that we've pretty much argued this one out. My basic point is that: it's not the guns, it's the parenting (or lack thereof). I would also wonder about how many times "a parent or parents who tried their best" then have a child do "something horrific....." I would guess: not many. If a parent is actually trying, the kid is not going to be doing stuff like this. But then, I would put under "trying" -- having kids with appropriate and responsible partners, and staying with that person/partner. Or, not having kids at all if that's too difficult.
I think that we reaching the point where. . . unless 5 or more are dead It's more like a school incident Rocket River
Why have none of the authors of these articles provided a list showing which of the shooters were from 'broken' homes, along with what makes the home 'broken'? If they are going to make these claims, back it up. I assume, since my daughter who I have known since she was two and adopted when she was around four, after I married her mother, comes from a broken home.
Dunno to your first question; but as to your personal situation (and I applaud it) ...your adopted daughter has had a father (figure) since she was two. A father (figure) playing a key, supportive, constructive role goes a long way toward preventing any dysfunctional/criminal action on the part of the child. Much more so than a single mother can do, by herself. So all that fits in perfectly with what I'm saying here. Now, we could go down a rabbit hole about how step dads are often the biggest abusers of adopted/step children, but I'll leave that alone, since I'm confident that's not the situation in your case. But that dynamic does happen all too often.
Thus, my query as to what a broken home is defined as. As I pointed out earlier, in one of the shootings, the father was in the picture for the shooter’s first 17 years. It seems disingenuous that these authors quote these erroneous numbers (at least the one corrected his article), without any additional details. Clearly, it is better for a child to be reared with loving and committed parents, but before coming to conclusions, more details are needed.
(Parkland) Deputy charged for his inaction during the shooting. Edit: Bond set at $102,000 -- 11 charges https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/scot-peterson-parkland-shooting.html
