Page 41 - January 2020 IIssue new year

Vigilance for Violence

tic and pretentious “evi- analyze a particular is- and reflects lucid decision-

B dence” allegedly revealed sue. Public discourse and making. Other viewpoints
R by the latest study is that private debate are heavily will disagree. Regardless,
O it results in an opinion, antagonized by subjective violence toward other

W which is open to rebut- bias, ideological jargon, people reflects selfish
A tal. Refutation and rebuke informational ignorance, purposes of the perpetra-

R counters by similar means as well as frequent out- tor. Whether an assump-
D and methodology. Ad- cries of oversimplification. tion is made about “child-
ditionally, the “expert” As such, human thinking hood” precursors, or lack

U viewpoints emanating is the result of organically of social opportunities, or
N from human behavior complex and intricately a “crime gene”, is mostly

I studies purports a “scien- interwoven via extraor- irrelevant to never ending
V tific” posture of which the dinary chemical and saga of human predatory
E underlying foundation is electrical processes. Ad- behavior.

R built upon research bias. ditionally, thoughts defy
S Such prejudicial conjec- comprehensive analytic Violence will happen in

I ture is influenced by the dissection, although some spite of the best efforts
T faulty assumption that philosophical schools of of social policy, law en-
Y human behavior, as well thought, or “social stud- forcement deployment, or

as human thinking, can ies”, assert mystic claims legislative prohibitions.
2 be reduced to a quantifi- of “scientific” quantifica- Even though a major gov-

0 able equation as though tion. ernment database records
2 an organically constituted fluctuations over time,
0 structure. Where a foren- Vigilance for violence recent trends show a gen-

sic chemist would subject presupposes an aware- eral 1% - 4% decline in
a substance in a crime lab ness and watchfulness in the overall U.S. violence

to microscopic analysis, a terms of ensuring coun- rate. When guns are in-
“social scientists” attempt termeasures that serve to volved for example, some
the same with human reduce the opportunities people and organizations

emotions. for harmful inflictions. seize the occasions to fur-
Violence toward others is ther their political agenda,

Depending on the po- a very human form per- or ideological perspec-
litical agenda, emotional petration given the wants, tive. What the actual data
reactivity often preempts desires and inclinations shows is ignored in favor

an objective focus on of the perpetrators. It is of egregious fallacies of
the facts in evidence to intentional, premeditated inferential reactivity to

41