Valsuelm

If you go back a century or more, the same people you would (or not, depending beliefs) entrust with sticking a scalpel in your guts and remove your appendix if it's inflamed, are the same guys who would tell you that your heart did the thinking, plague could be cured by bleeding the patient (since the disease must be in the blood!). Those who study the workings and the chemistry of the human mind are by no means perfect, but they'll get there eventually. To be honest, I think in its current state, diagnosing mental disorders correctly is about as hard as predicting the weather correctly for a week in advance. You have all the signs and indicators and experience with similar situations in the past, but in the end, it is currently something very intangible you are dealing with. What doesn't help is the big money involved, and I know back in Denmark, somebody did raise the issue a few decades ago, about the medical practitioners objectivity when they were part owners or shareholders in the medico industry. Some clever investigator noticed a pattern between prescriptions and relations between doctor and manufacturer. Maybe somebody should take a good look at kickbacks and fringe benefits for those handing out the prescriptions and doing the treatment? Psychology/Psychiatry isn't the same field as the medical field, never has been and more than likely never truly will be, despite the efforts of those in the former field to become recognized by the latter field. So the folks that used leeches really weren't the same people who performed lobotomies. As for the 'maybe somebody should look into'.... Just like many other issues many people have and the answers are clear. There is a direct relationship between those who make the drugs and those who prescribe them, even when those who prescribe them actually are ethical and intelligent people (there are a few) don't want it. Any doctor that doesn't have their heads up their ass and is honest with you will tell you that (though possibly not unless you know them on a personal basis). As an example of just how aware some are that there is a connection, some states even passed laws to attempt to prevent drugs companies from finding out who was prescribing what. Why? Because it's known that drug companies court doctors and attempt to get them to prescribe their drug. And as illegal as it is, many doctors do accept kickbacks under the table. Not only that many doctors are just straight up lazy and incompetent and don't do their own research preferring instead to just go by what company X tells them is good to prescribe for condition X (this is the fundamental purpose of the DSM). If the drug companies don't have a catalog to find out what doctor is prescribing what it's hard for them to target their efforts. Of course as soon as this law was passed the states were sued. Vermont's case went all the way to the Supreme Court but the states lost (as they often do on any issue in the very corrupt Federal Court system when they're up against corporate interests or the Federal government itself.). see Sorrell vs. IMS Health for the case then went before the court. There are people out there fighting the good fight. On this issue as well as many others. Sadly most of the populace prefers to stay ignorant on this and many other issues. It doesn't take too long to dig deep enough to find overwhelming corruption on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, and many a 'doctor' in regards to psychotropic drugs or other drugs and chemicals in general.That said it usually doesn't take too long to dig deep enough to find corruption and dispel many a widely held myth. Most people sadly prefer to keep their heads in the sand, have their 'arguments' given to them by the bought and paid for media, and pick the 'left' or 'right' side in the imagined debate, never realizing that they're just expendable pawns being played and farmed.

While I couldn't be more against children taking psychotropics (or adults doing the same in all but rare exceptions), I would never tell someone it's not going to get better. Every person has a different situation and of those who are pushed to 'the edge' there are different reasons for being there. In most cases it actually will get better, though I'd never lie to someone as people are oft to do and say something ridiculous like 'time will heal'. If your entire family just blew up in an airplane or you've had all your limbs blown off by and IED... things really may not get better. Telling a teen that's going through some really bad stuff that it isn't going to get better is going to be a bad move and a false statement at least 99.99999% of the time. Teenage years are not supposed to be the best years in anyone's life. If that's really true perhaps we should just all call it quits after them ala Logun's Run. Ridiculous? Of course... because it's not true. It's definitely been advertised to be in our culture as well as there are a great many adults out there saying they miss their teenage years. There are many reasons for that, but for many adults it's because they messed up their lives incredibly since their teens, or they're only adults by age and are still immature teens in their head and don't like responsibility. Anon. In short: I had to take issue with you saying that the best years of anyone's life is their teenage years and that a teen who at some point is/was suicidal should just off themselves because it won't get better. For most, it does, and profoundly so.

No need to insult yourself, especially with a stereotype such as that. If you don't like the thread that much, don't read it. As I said. I don't find much useful in this thread either (I could say this about many threads) and don't agree with the lolz at the guys at Interplays expense. And this is coming from someone who really doesn't have much respect for Interplay anymore as in the end they did much to hurt the genre of games I like, before that though they published many I did. However, that's not all that's in this thread. There is some valid conversation occurring that has nothing to do with belittling anyone (such as our conversation sans your self insult). As has been pointed out by at least one other in this thread (on the very first page), this thread probably belongs in the 'Way Off Topic' forum. It doesn't deserve to be shut down no matter how distasteful it might be, and on the scale of distasteful it's really not that bad. It's a very slippery slope when you start censoring things. Aside from what I mentioned about it above almost never should be done. If the immature gleeful bashers bother you that much, take heart, karma will likely find them someday unless they discover the err of their ways. And again, just don't read the thread if it bothers you that much.

It is a good thing I am not a mod here as I would have locked this thread the day it started. Call me weird but I don't think topics that are about bashing and insulting an individual and the company they run are okay, regardless of who they are or what company they represent. It is a good thing you're not a mod. Censorship sucks. I don't agree with much in this thread either, but I really just think it should maybe be in another forum such as Off-Topic. Definitely not closed. Any moderating much beyond moving a thread to the appropriate forum, eliminating spam, stopping a flame war, or redacting a post that has excessive amounts of profanity in it is generally just arbitrary censorship and generally makes for a bad forum.

If you scroll down on that page, you have a few folks explaining why those stats are bogus http://nationalprior...cruitment-2010/ Seems like a better breakdown at the above link. Neither you or the people who I'm reading calling those stats bogus in the link you provide are backing what you're saying up with anything concrete. The stats ShadySands posted are from ~2004. The stats you posted are from 2007-2010. There's no reason to believe in either of the links that the info in the other is incorrect. From what I know of military recruitment both probably are correct, and I've little reason to think they're wrong. In both sets of stats the south generally is supplying more recruits than the rest of the nation. This is and has generally been true for a long long time. Something that is also true is that most military folks are pro 2nd Amendment and understand and appreciate what 'shall not be infringed' means.

They shouldn't be taken seriously, but to the determent of millions are by too many. I recommend reading/watching Dr. Thomas Szasz. He was one of the very few psychologists/psychiatrists that really had a clue. He sadly passed away a few months ago. There are others out there but he is probably the most well known. Most in his field were and are a bunch of quacks at best, with many being brainwashed drug peddlers who work unwittingly for big pharma. A short clip: I also recommend finding and watching the documentary 'Generation Rx', as well as reading up on the history of western psychology in general (especially over the last ~120 years). Most laymen would be surprised at just how unscientific the whole field has been since the get go as well as how corrupt at it's core it is. If civilization lasts long enough and somehow avoids the 'Brave New World' route those who inherit this earth will look back at our labeling people with disorder X and drugging them as stupid and barbaric just as we look back at lobotomies as being stupid and barbaric.

This was really a bad video. It went nowhere and there was nothing objective in this video, it was largely just right v. left BS. Though a few clips were doozies. Such as the Fox News anchor calling an automatic handgun a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' as well as implying the weapons were made for law enforement and military primarily. Propaganda propaganda propaganda, and BS BS BS. If the author of this video really is a lawyer for the ACLU, he's not one of their better ones. He's blinded by the left right paradigm of thinking as his whole video stayed within the bounds of that paradigm, and his final question was based on the false duality of Republicans vs. Democrats. That said, it is very clear that some in this thread think along those lines. Indeed a majority of westerners do (and this is one of our primary problems). Tip: If you consider yourself a 'liberal' and generally think 'conservatives' got it all wrong, or think you're a 'conservative' and generally think the 'liberals' got it all wrong: you're either brainwashed (if you hate either you're definitely brainwashed) or just haven't paid enough attention to what goes on around you. Either way you've got some waking up to do.

Gun control laws really don't help. But you're right in that the thought that they do is only treating the symptom. It's not even an effective symptom treatment though. In general that's how we handle things in the west on this issue and most others: treat the symptom, be reactive. The fundamentals aren't even realized by a great many, and are almost always ignored by the media. What do you mean by 'near-pennalistic social hierarchies'? 'Pennalistic' is not a word in the English language. The social hierarchies that exist today are much the same as they were for most of the last 100 years or more, though fads and what's acceptable behavior definitely changes over time. There are definitely huge problems in today's high schools that weren't there even 20 years ago in most places in the U.S. For the most part it's how they are now run and how the students are viewed that are different. In an increasing number of cases it's also how they're even taught. There are a number of reasons for that, and the momentum of the direction things are going in are solidly for the worse not the better. Ultimately in most cases the responsibility lies with the parents for their children's actions, though increasingly the state is usurping parental rights and responsibilities even from parents who wish to actually be parents and not just humans that spawned some offspring they might pay for. A reactive society, attempting to treat the symptom, propaganda, and the thought by many that every undesirable thing can somehow be legislated or regulated out of existence has a lot to do with this. Parents willing to take that responsibility are becoming rarer and rarer, as more and more are letting the schools, TVs, computers, and everyone else raise their kids for them.

I would rather ask something different. Have I really lost my chance at getting a decent boxed version? Since Project Eternity pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of the past, we SHOULD get a decent boxed version. I'm talking about those huge cereal boxes. Hell, not only were the manuals gigantic, some games even included a 200 page novella to set up the backstory! Nowadays all you get is a DVD and a piece of paper that says "Read the .pdf manual in the DVD". Here Here!!!

Or can you just not even read? As Volourn mentions above. The above statement is false.

Not on most who were alive back in the 80s when the events that lead to the term becoming part of the American vocabulary happened. I imagine some younger folks who weren't or were but were still pooping themselves might look at the term differently as slang tends to morph meanings over time. Usually the term is used in a dark humor context, and there were some comedians back then who used it in their routine which helped popularize it. How is this relevant though?

Family situations such as what you've described suck. I'm sorry you're having one. Some general advice. Avoid emails. Face to face communication is the way to go if at all possible. Second to that, get on the phone, or if everyone has it maybe something such as Skype. Electronic text can be cold and easily misinterpreted, especially if the reader is already emotionally charged in some way or is being told something they weren't expecting to hear or may not like haering. The normal parts of communication that would alleviate such emotion, like a smile, certain tone of voice, body language, etc are not found in emails. It's often not as bad as people think. When it comes to electronic media people can sometimes also tend to write things they'd not say to someone's face. That's not good. A good general rule of thumb when it comes to communicating is if you can't say it to someone's face, you more than likely shouldn't be saying/writing it. Avoid 'professional' help. Not only will it be a waste of money, If you or anyone else goes that route and heeds the advice given chances are some relationships are going to be kaputt for good. Whatever your problems are, it's best to work them out for yourselves for better or worse. I've seen nothing good come out of anyone ever going to a 'professional'. You're better off getting some advice from a random old person in a nursing home, sitting on a bar stool, or in a forum such as this (I'll note though, that a forum such as this is electronic communication.... lots is lost that wouldn't be if you were looking into the eyes of whomever you were speaking to). Really though, if you're looking for advice turn to a friend or another family member if you have one that is the kind of person that will tell you something you may not want to hear if it's the truth (these people are not common). As for specifics to your situation. It's pretty obvious to me that there's a lot more to the story, and I don't know anyone involved so I really can't give much solid advice other than the general advice I'm giving. I wouldn't be angry if I were you. Yes, your father may have said some things you don't like, and he may even be wrong, but he's attempting to tell you how he's viewing a situation. That's not something to get angry about. Be thankful he's even writing you about this, more and more people these days don't take the time to write. Don't have any kids suffer due to adults squabbles in your family. Exchange the gifts. The holidays are supposed to be a time for healing, or at the very least putting differences aside to come together. Also, It seems to me from reading your post that you don't live near your parents? If that's the case, go visit them. If you do live near them, go see them more often. Sit down and talk to them. Then after you do that, sit down and talk to them with your wife. Don't let the avoidance of confrontation be the death of your relationship with them (all too many people go this route), and don't let confrontation destroy your relationships (don't let yourself get angry). Give full disclosure to your wife, tell her everything (you should always do that, a relationship without complete honesty is either a going to be dead one or a superficial one), but do it as diplomatically as possible. If she gets angry then she may indeed have an issue. If what your father says is true and she does come off as a 'know it all', then she is part of the problem. You shouldn't have to choose between her and your family though. Your wife just may need to work on her social skills a bit more (many of us do from time to time). Pride can be the biggest enemy in situations such as these. Many people do not have it within them to admit they or someone they care about is wrong (blind loyalty is not a virtue), were/are and ass@#*(, or that someone they don't like might be right. Finally. If there's any bit of advice you should heed, and I can't stress this enough. Go and talk to your parents face to face, and don't let yourself get angry. If they get angry, ride out their wrath. Stay calm and rational (hard at times I know). And if at first you don't succeed, try try again. Your relationship with your wife, your parents, and your children's relationship with their grandparents is worth it.

I personally know someone who was murdered by someone with a hammer in a house that had numerous guns in it. She never had the opportunity to defend herself as the perpetrator took her unaware as it was someone she knew. He chose to use a hammer though, not a gun, despite there being many at his disposal. I also know someone who committed suicide in house with numerous guns at his disposal, yet he chose a knife. There's two deaths for you that had guns not been available absolutely no difference would have been made. I also personally know someone who'd be catmeat if her boyfriend didn't have a gun to shoot the cougar that attacked her. She was quite wounded, but lived because someone had a gun. I also personally know someone who sent an intruder in her home fleeing when she shot a warning shot out of her rifle into her bedroom floor. Whoever it was had been trying to force his way into her room. Who knows what would have happened to her had she not had that rifle. She opted not to shoot the guy though, so unfortunately he got away likely to cause harm to someone else another day. So there's just a couple examples based on personal experience (across the nation there are innumerable more examples) the refute the concept that if guns aren't available tragedy X wouldn't have happened, as well as illustrate that guns do indeed save lives.

Not sure I can agree with this. Unless you have connections with some sort of criminal element, I don't know if he'd be able to acquire the weapons as easily. This is 100 % true The 2 handguns and the automatic weapon that was used in the Sandy Hook school shootings were Adam Lanzas mothers, do you think she would have had been able to get these weapons through illegal means? Highly unlikely First, you underestimate the black market, both in size, what you can find on it, and the relative ease of finding it. Where there is a will there is a way. Second, you assume that if it were to come to pass one day that these guns you dislike were to be illegal everyone would give up their guns. I guarantee you there's be a lot of people who weren't previously breaking the law, breaking the law willfully if a ban were to come about. Someone such as Mrs. Lanza, who believes that all hell is likely to break loose in the not so distance future very well might have been such a person to obtain what she felt she needed regardless of any laws. The idea that a ban on guns would have prevented what happened last week or will prevent a future catastrophe is an idea firmly rooted in lala land.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted? The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives. It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate. If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday. There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon. Less guns=the need for more effort=less people following through. Also, your last paragraph just points to Hurlie's points about psychiatric care. And note that there's a difference between "crime rate" and "Homocide rate" and "fatalities". Your first and last line make no real point. I'll respond to your second though. Psychiatric 'care' as your average westerner sees it is not a solution, it is a problem. As I've mentioned before, most of the massacres (at least in the U.S.... I'm not overly familiar with ones elsewhere) in schools and out of schools over the last two decades were perpetrated by people under the influence of psychotropics. I'd posit that there's a good chance the crimes would not have happen had the perps not been under the influence of these drugs. We don't talk about that though much here in the U.S. because a large portion of the population is taking these drugs or similar drugs. Psychiatrists and psychologists have become the new priests and bishops for many who seek console, Unlike priests and bishops though these replacements peddle (and even push) drugs. They often advise in favor of division and the material over reconciliation and the spiritual, but that's a secondary (yet not small) problem. The drugs that are designed first and foremost to help pharmaceutical company X's bottom line, not the individual taking them. Some would say that it's not the drugs as a large portion of the population that is on these drugs is not out killing a great many people. True, but these drugs affect people in subtly different ways, and all are affected negatively to the detriment of themselves and those they have relationships with. The first thing most psychotropics do to a person is numb them emotionally to a degree to what goes on around them. And even if an adult is 'out of their mind' on drugs, if they made it to adulthood before using these drugs they're likely already hardwired to not do something such as a 'massacre', a person who has been on these drugs since childhood and doesn't know life without them may not have such hard wiring. Note that most massacres are perpetrated by the young. People who aren't or never have been under the affect of any of these drugs tend to not realize just how much the person sitting next to them is affected. And the person on them isn't always aware of just how much they're affected due to the subtle nature of some of the drugs, and they're especially unaware if they don't know better. The number of children placed on these drugs has skyrocketed over the last two decades. It's sad and scary, as the societal effects of this has not yet been realized, and won't be for some time. I guarantee you these effects are not going to be good, as on an individual level these drugs usually wreak great havoc. The drugging of our children and the labeling of many of them as 'suffering' from 'disorder X' is probably one of the greatest crimes perpetrated on a generation in the history of the world. What these children are usually suffering from if anything is horrible/naive parents and/or horrible/naive teachers/psychologists not any real mental deficiency, and because of that their lives are often ruined by these drugs they are placed on. Some of them realize that but most do not as they have no point of reference to a life without them, as they've never known it.

Well, there are two questions we need to ask about that. First, should we be seeking to reduce massacres in particular, or homicide in general? Second, does restricting guns reduce massacres, and if so by how much? They're clearly possible without firearms, as the worst terrorist attack in US history involved hijacking a plane, and the worst domestic one in history involved an explosive. And the Chinese have an ongoing issue with knife attacks on schools in which maniacs stab children to death. And restricting firearms doesn't get rid of them. The question is: is there a substitution effect, and if so how much is substituted? The worst school massacre in U.S. history was also done with explosives. It's relatively safe to say that the 'substitution' would be close to 100%, and that's not considering the affects on other crimes such as robbery and rape that would very possibly increase in some segments of an unarmed populace. One can just look at the crime rates in England or Australia after their relatively recent disarming of the population and see how much their lack of guns hasn't helped their crime rate. If someone is hell bent on killing person(s) X, they're more than likely going to be able to accomplish that with or without a gun if they have the element of surprise and aren't going up against armed people (even against armed people the first victim(s) are sadly going to be toast unless luck is on their side). The thing is we are all to an extent at the mercy of the 'madman' should he decide to strike us. You cannot legislate the 'madman' out of existence or take away all of his tools. The best thing to do to defend against the 'madman' is to have weapons close by to protect yourself and others once the 'madman' moves into action. Fortunately, for the would be armed or unarmed there aren't that many people out there who would perpetrate a crime such as was done last Friday. There is no legislation that would have prevented any recent school massacre, nor any that will prevent the future massacre. What would have (would) possibly made (make) them less atrocious in terms of numbers of fatalities was if there had been (would be) someone there who could have stopped the perpetrator(s). People generally do try to do this, even if they're unarmed, but unless luck is very much on their side (and it sadly hasn't been) they're going to fail unless they themselves are armed with a weapon.

The above is an incredibly naive statement. In the U.S., on some levels we're already arguably way beyond the level of tyranny that caused the war that created this nation. There's certainly no doubt that if alive today Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al would be meeting somewhere working on the next Revolution right now. Regardless of what they'd do or not do, there is absolutely nothing about 'this day and age' that makes it impervious to tyranny, if anything the tyrannical state has more tools than ever to levy it's power. You're right that any revolutionary war would be largely a guerrilla war. For the most part that's always been true. You're wrong in that the revolutionaries wouldn't get their hands on RPGs, Stingers, etc in relative short order, they would, and possibly from multiple sources.

Funny you should being up ole TR. Teddy *was* incompetent. He was the puppet/lapdog of King Edward VII and J.P. Morgan along with *his* European stringholders. A great many things went awry under his administration. In many ways Teddy arguably was the first really horrible President the U.S. had on many levels. You wouldn't know that growing up in your typical America school though, where you're taught that Teddy was 'a man's man', aka the first 'cool' president. Hey.. I once thought that too, until I became more than passingly familiar with American as well as European history, as well as learned who wrote those school textbooks. If you think Teddy Roosevelt was a good president.... well.... there's just no way to debunk that in a small amount of space. If you care at all for liberty and the fundamentals that the U.S. Republic sits on though, I suggest you reconsider. You've got a lot of reading to do however. Realizing Teddy isn't the cat's meow doesn't happen overnight. I recommend this book to get started. It's brand new and I haven't read it myself, but Andrew has more than a clue and I trust he makes a good case. His thesis is certainly spot on as Wilson was a lapdog and tragedy as well.

Sometimes mindsets shouldn't change. There are things worth standing up for, liberty is certainly one of them. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. Though unfortunately many (as a result of miseducation and propaganda in the news and from your socialist or incompetent politician) actually think we do live in a democracy. Tip, as I know some are going to look up the difference right now: If you don't readily know the difference, you have A LOT of homework to do on what's going on in the world. The decision was made long ago. The United States of America would not have existed long without the 2nd Amendment or the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights. Some things should not be changed. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are some of those things. Do the people in the US trust the system enough? Depends on who you ask. Overall though, the short answer to that is no. And I'll posit that anyone who says yes has their head in the sand or is just too young to realize just how much they're being lied to.

That is indeed a better idea.

If Anders Behring Breivik wasn't a psychopath, no one is. His actions: killing 70+ and injuring hundreds of random people he did not know while having no remorse or empathy for his victims is the very essence of what a psychopath is. If anyone's picture could be placed next to the definition of psychopath in the dictionary it's his.

Then support your claim with better sources. You made no point. You accused me of somehow being in denial for challenging something someone else wrote that was based on very incomplete information, and substantiated that claim in no way. Disingenuous I was not.

American culture is much like European culture in regards to the number of uber whackoloons we have. Western society shares many of the same ills throughout it's various nations. The wikipedia information is very incomplete for all nations, especially in regards to atrocities in Europe. Note that very few school shooting are listed prior to the internet age. It is not because there were so few shooting during that time it's because any that happened were not documented as well they would be now. Tragedies such as a school shooting generally just used to make the local news, let alone national, and especially international news. You are proving his point with your denial. Not really, you're just proving you don't realize that wikipedia isn't the best place to find information (especially in regards to information about events prior to the internet age), as well as your inability to argue well. Even if you go by the information on the wikipedia the number of mass murders (10 or more dead) over the last 20 years at a school number higher in Europe (5) than in the U.S. (3). If you lower that bar to more to 3+ murders in one incident, over the last twenty years the number of mass murders (3 or more dead) at schools are nearly the same in Europe (19) and the US (18). Incidents where 1 or 2 people are killed generally shouldn't be counted as a 'school attack' incident, as in most cases the perpetrator was interested in only killing those 1 or 2 people and would have done so elsewhere; the school at large wasn't a target it just happened to be where the crime was done. A recent example would be the kid who killed his father who was a professor at a Wisconsin college in his father's classroom. He had no interest in killing anyone else there that day (the kid by the way was pissed at his father for passing the 'aspergers gene' on to him, among other things no doubt).

If there's anything I don't want in regards to voice acting, it's a well known narrator. She'd be far less than perfect imo. Baldur's Gate did it right. Great narration by a voice most were unfamiliar with. If any known voice actor was used as the narrator my vote would be for the same guy who did BG.

American culture is much like European culture in regards to the number of uber whackoloons we have. Western society shares many of the same ills throughout it's various nations. The wikipedia information is very incomplete for all nations, especially in regards to atrocities in Europe. Note that very few school shooting are listed prior to the internet age. It is not because there were so few shooting during that time it's because any that happened were not documented as well they would be now. Tragedies such as a school shooting generally just used to make the local news, let alone national, and especially international news.