Bend shooting; been rumaging on the Internet fot information on the 16 year old shooter. Nothing from officials, yet. One commentator stated; 'Must have been his hormones!'. Another wanted to know why it is always schools that are hit, and never government buildings or officials. Has anyone from the academic world ever produced a general theory on all this kind of event??
Yes. In fact, one of the strongest conclusions from the academic literature is that there is no single-cause theory. Researchers have spent more than 25 years looking for "the reason" behind school shootings and have largely abandoned that search. Instead, most modern theories view these attacks as the result of a constellation of factors that come together in a small number of individuals.
The "hormones" explanation would be regarded by most scholars as far too simplistic. Adolescence matters because it is a period of emotional volatility and identity formation, but that alone cannot explain why millions of teenagers do not become shooters.
A few major theories have emerged:
1. The "Constellation Theory" approach
This was developed by sociologist Katherine Newman and colleagues and has been influential in school-shooting research. The idea is that attacks generally involve several elements occurring together:
A personal grievance or humiliation
Failure of social support systems
A cultural script that makes violence seem imaginable
Access to weapons
Circumstances that allow the plan to proceed
The theory argues that no single factor is sufficient by itself.
sagepub
2. The "Pathway to Violence" model
This is widely used by threat-assessment professionals. Instead of asking "What kind of person becomes a shooter?", it asks "What process leads somebody toward violence?" Researchers describe a progression:
This model has become influential because many attackers appear to move through recognisable stages rather than "snapping" suddenly.
3. Social-Control Theories
Some criminologists focus on weakened social bonds. The argument is not that bullying or loneliness automatically creates a shooter, but that people who become detached from family, school, friends, and community may lose some of the restraints that ordinarily prevent violence.
4. Developmental and Life-Course Theories
Researchers have applied broader criminological theories that examine a person's life history. They look at long-term patterns involving family problems, trauma, social isolation, disciplinary issues, personal crises, and other experiences that accumulate over time.
As for the commentator's question:
Why schools, and not government buildings?
Academics have discussed this a great deal.
One explanation is that school shooters are often acting out a grievance rooted in their own immediate social world. Their humiliation, anger, rejection, romantic disappointment, bullying experiences, status anxieties, or feelings of exclusion are connected to the school environment. The school is symbolically important because it is where their daily social life occurs.
By contrast, attacks on government officials are usually studied under somewhat different categories, such as political violence, terrorism, or assassination attempts, where the perpetrator's grievance is directed at political institutions rather than peers and teachers.
One other interesting finding is that many attackers seem less interested in achieving a concrete political goal than in making a dramatic statement, gaining notoriety, or expressing despair and revenge. Scholars often describe these events as targeted violence driven by grievance rather than conventional political action.
Regarding the 16-year-old in Bend, if officials have not yet released details, it is wise to be sceptical of early internet theories. After many previous shootings, initial explanations turned out to be wrong because people tend to seize on a single factor, such as bullying, antidepressants, violent games, hormones, or mental illness, whereas the research generally points to a more complicated mix of influences.
I liked the 'must have been' comment; seems both rueful and sarcastic at once...
I know exactly what you mean. "Must have been his hormones!" works on two levels at once.
On the surface, it sounds like a serious attempt at explanation: teenagers have hormones, therefore perhaps hormones are to blame.
But the wording "must have been..." is often used sarcastically to mock an explanation that is far too simple. It is rather like saying:
"Must have been the video games."
"Must have been the full moon."
"Must have been the coffee."
The speaker is implying that people are reaching for a convenient, catch-all explanation instead of grappling with a much more complicated reality.
"Rueful" is a good word here because it can convey a sort of weary recognition. The remark may be expressing: Here we are again, trying to explain an incomprehensible event with a single factor. The humour, if there is humour, is dark and bitter rather than cheerful.
In fact, many criminologists have expressed a similar frustration. After a major attack, public discussion often becomes a hunt for the cause:
mental illness
bullying
violent media
hormones
guns
social media
family breakdown
Yet when researchers examine individual cases closely, they usually find a tangled combination of factors rather than one decisive cause.
Your commentator's second question, about why schools are attacked so often, strikes me as a more penetrating observation. Schools are places where adolescents spend most of their waking lives, where status hierarchies are very visible, and where grudges, humiliations, exclusions and social comparisons are experienced daily. If someone's grievance is against the immediate social world around them, the school becomes the symbolic stage on which they act it out.
So "must have been his hormones" can be read not merely as a claim, but as a criticism of reductionism: the tendency to reduce a tragic and complex human event to a single biological explanation.
And, from a literary point of view, it is quite a neat phrase. Five words that can be heard either as earnest explanation or as exasperated mockery of earnest explanations. That's probably why it stuck in your mind.
As someone who is following events in France at the same time, I am struck by how different the two societies are. In France, students are expressing discontent collectively and now, there is call for a massive demonstrations on Saturday with an expected presence of the 'black blocs', the anarchists sure to move things to a more violent level. The police will be there... but not the Army!
That is a fascinating contrast, and I think you're noticing something real.
In France, there is a very old and deeply rooted tradition of collective political action. If students, workers, pensioners, farmers, or public-sector employees are angry, there is an established cultural script:
Organise → Demonstrate → Strike → Occupy public space → Confront the government if necessary.
The state expects this. The police expect this. The demonstrators expect this. In a sense, everyone knows their role.
Even the appearance of the black blocs follows a familiar pattern. They are not representative of most demonstrators, but they are a recognised phenomenon within French protest culture. The authorities deploy large numbers of riot police because they anticipate the possibility of clashes.
By contrast, many American school shooters are not attempting to mobilise a crowd at all. They often appear profoundly isolated. Their grievance is personal rather than collective. They do not say:
"Come with me. Let's change society."
Instead, the attitude can be:
"I have been wronged. I will make everyone notice."
That is a very different psychological and social dynamic.
Some sociologists have argued that if people have effective channels for expressing grievances collectively, individual acts of spectacular violence may become less attractive. That does not mean demonstrations prevent violence or that France is immune from lone-actor attacks. France has had its share of terrorism and other violent incidents. But the country's repertoire of protest is much richer and more normalised.
What also strikes me is your observation about the Army.
In France, even during very large demonstrations, the visible force is normally the police, particularly units such as the CRS and gendarmerie mobile. The confrontation is framed as a matter of public order between citizens and the state. The Army is generally not deployed against demonstrators.
The United States likewise does not normally use the Army against protesters. But when violence occurs there, it is often discussed through the lenses of criminal justice, mental health, and security rather than through the language of social movements.
In a way, the two situations express anger at opposite ends of a spectrum:
The French student protester says, "Many of us are angry."
The school shooter says, "I alone am angry."
One is fundamentally collective, even when disorderly. The other is intensely individual.
That difference may help explain why a French observer can look at an American school shooting and think, "Why didn't he join a movement, a demonstration, a cause?" while an American observer might look at a French street protest involving tear gas and burning bins and wonder, "Why are they all in the streets?"
Both societies have discontent. They just tend to channel it through very different institutions and traditions.
* * *
From the Guardian UK, Saturday 17 October, 2026...
Quebec City; was the new PQ government of PSPP sworn in yesterday?
Non. D'après les informations publiées ce matin, les députés élus du Parti québécois (PQ), y compris le premier ministre désigné Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon (PSPP), doivent être assermentés aujourd'hui, le 15 octobre 2026, à l'Assemblée nationale.
L'élection générale a eu lieu le 5 octobre 2026, et le PQ a remporté 59 sièges, formant un gouvernement minoritaire. PSPP est devenu premier ministre désigné à la suite de cette victoire.
Selon CBC, le conseil des ministres (le cabinet) du nouveau gouvernement doit ensuite être assermenté le 21 octobre 2026.
Donc, si par « le nouveau gouvernement » vous entendez l'ensemble du gouvernement PQ dirigé par PSPP, il n'a pas été assermenté hier. L'assermentation des députés a lieu aujourd'hui, et celle du cabinet est prévue pour le 21 octobre.
Qui fera partie du cabinet du 21 octobre?
À ce jour, Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon n'a pas encore dévoilé la composition de son cabinet. Les articles publiés après l'élection confirment seulement que le Conseil des ministres sera annoncé le 21 octobre 2026.
Les médias québécois spéculent déjà sur certains noms, mais je n'ai pas trouvé de source actuelle donnant une liste officielle ou même une liste consensuelle de ministres pressentis.
Cela dit, quelques députés péquistes souvent mentionnés comme candidats naturels à des postes importants sont :
Pascal Bérubé, vétéran du caucus et ancien ministre.
Joël Arseneau, l'un des députés d'expérience du PQ.
Catherine Gentilcore, souvent associée aux dossiers économiques durant la campagne.
Paul St‑Pierre Plamondon lui-même, qui pourrait conserver certains dossiers stratégiques au Bureau du premier ministre.
Cependant, cette liste relève de l'analyse politique et non d'une information confirmée.
Avec seulement 59 sièges sur 125, le gouvernement étant minoritaire, il sera aussi intéressant de voir si PSPP choisit un cabinet relativement restreint et axé sur quelques priorités immédiates plutôt qu'une structure ministérielle très large.
Je peux aussi vous donner mon analyse des postes les plus susceptibles d'être créés ou supprimés (Santé Québec, Langue française, Relations canadiennes, etc.) d'après les engagements du PQ durant la campagne.
Blogger; Google just sent out a notice of new enforcement policies to come into effect Dec 16, 2026. I read through and found I was clean on everything, although I am not clear about copyright. Given that my blog's audience might include the elderly and Francophones with limited English, I follow the very latest and sometimes re-run articles from newspapers, using an archive.ph version of otherwise protected content. Should I stop doing this??
My short answer: yes, I would strongly consider stopping the practice of republishing full newspaper articles that are still under copyright, even if you are sourcing them from archive.ph rather than the newspaper's website.
Here's why.
archive.ph does not remove copyright protection. An article remains copyrighted whether you read it on the newspaper's site, an archive site, a library database, or a photocopy. The venue changes; the copyright status does not.
For Blogger, Google states that it complies with legal requirements and removes content that violates its policies, including copyright claims. A copyright holder can file a complaint and Blogger may remove the content or take action against the blog.
The risk is not necessarily that Google's new enforcement policies specifically target what you're doing. The risk is that:
A publisher notices.
They file a copyright complaint.
Blogger receives a valid notice.
The content is removed and repeated complaints could affect the blog.
What is usually safer?
✅ Quoting excerpts and then adding your own commentary, explanation, or translation.
✅ Linking to the original article (and perhaps also mentioning that an archived version exists for readers who encounter a paywall).
✅ Summarising the article in your own words, especially if your goal is to make English-language news accessible to Francophones or elderly readers.
✅ Translating selected short passages and discussing them.
Less safe:
❌ Republishing the entire article, even if you credit the newspaper.
❌ Republishing an archive.ph copy verbatim.
❌ Reproducing most of the article while only changing a few words.
There is also a practical consideration. If your audience consists of elderly readers and Francophones, your unique value is probably not acting as a mirror of newspaper content. Your value is likely that you:
curate important stories,
explain them,
translate key points,
provide context.
That kind of original work is both more defensible and more useful to readers.
If I were running the blog, I'd adopt a simple rule:
"Never republish a complete newspaper article unless I have permission. Instead, quote limited portions, attribute the source, and provide my own summary and analysis."
That would substantially reduce the copyright risk while preserving the service you're providing to your audience.
Do you know whether your blog is currently reproducing entire articles or mainly long excerpts plus commentary? The risk level is quite different between those two situations.
I don't do it often, and I might pick a short piece that is readable, or funny!!
In that case, the practical risk is much lower than if you were routinely copying entire investigative pieces or paywalled features.
If you're occasionally reposting a very short newspaper item, especially one that is mostly being shared because it's amusing, odd, or of local interest, the publisher is less likely to notice or object. However, from a strict copyright perspective, the article is still protected whether it's long or short.
A safer approach would be:
Reproduce only a brief excerpt.
Identify the newspaper and author if known.
Add your own introduction or commentary.
Summarise the rest in your own words.
Link to the source (or discuss where it appeared).
For example, instead of republishing a 300-word humorous column, you might quote 50-100 words and then write:
"This story amused me because..."
"For my French-speaking readers, the gist is that..."
That transforms the post from a copy into something genuinely your own.
Also, consider your audience. If many readers are elderly or have limited English, a French summary of an English article is often more valuable than the article itself. You're providing interpretation and accessibility rather than republication.
If you've only done this occasionally over the years, I would not panic and start deleting your archive overnight. But going forward, I would gradually move towards short quotations plus your own summary and reaction rather than reproducing complete newspaper pieces. That's generally a much safer long-term habit for a Blogger site.
Ironically, the funnier and shorter an article is, the easier it often is to summarise. A two-paragraph "man arrested after calling police to complain about being arrested" type story can usually be retold in a few sentences without copying the publisher's text at all. 😊
I do appreciate that some important news sites might be conflicted about it all. The New York Times has some freebies everyday, and knows how to block archiving sites. But they will also allow a few piece to be accessed in this way every month...one gets an allowance. But this is an exception! The Wall Street Journal blocks completely, but they do put the essential information from a piece on the site...
I think you're putting your finger on something important: there is a difference between the legal copyright question and the practical publishing ecosystem.
Many newspapers have effectively made business decisions about access. The New York Times, for example, allows some free access and has technical measures it can deploy against scraping or archiving. Other publishers are more permissive. Others, such as the Wall Street Journal, are famously strict with paywalls and access controls. That's part of each publisher's strategy.
But from your perspective as a Blogger publisher, I'd separate three situations:
1. Reading archived articles for your own research
Very common.
Low risk for you as a reader.
Helps you verify facts and preserve access to material that may later disappear.
2. Linking readers to archived articles
More controversial.
Some publishers dislike it because it bypasses advertising or subscription models.
However, you are not reproducing the article yourself.
3. Copying the article onto your own blog
This is where the copyright risk becomes much higher.
Now you're not merely directing readers elsewhere; you're creating a second publication of the copyrighted text.
What strikes me from what you've described is that your motivation does not sound exploitative. You're not running a content farm. You're trying to make interesting material available to readers who may:
have limited English,
be elderly,
have difficulty navigating paywalls,
simply appreciate a humorous clipping.
That sympathetic purpose may matter morally, but unfortunately copyright law generally focuses more on the act of reproduction than on whether the copier had good intentions.
If I were in your position, I would probably evolve towards a style something like this:
"The New York Times reports that..."
"Here is the amusing part..."
short quotation
"For my French-speaking readers, the article explains that..."
your own summary and commentary
That preserves almost all of the value for your audience while greatly reducing your exposure.
And frankly, as a reader, I'd probably rather hear your take. Anyone can repost a newspaper article. A long-time blogger who says, "Here's what happened, here's why it amused me, and here's a French-language explanation," is providing something original.
One final thought: if you've only occasionally reposted a short, humorous news item over the years, I doubt that is the sort of thing most publishers spend much effort chasing. Going forward, though, Google's increasing emphasis on policy enforcement is probably a good reason to adopt the "quote briefly, then summarise" model rather than reproducing complete articles. It's the conservative approach and it's easier to defend if anyone ever asks questions.
The US has 'fair use' laws on this. What is the situation in Canada?
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
Criticism or review
News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
how much of the work was copied,
whether there were alternatives,
how widely it was distributed,
whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairn
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
brief quotations,
attribution,
links,
French-language summaries,
discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
The US has 'fair use' laws on this. What is thesituation in Canada?
Copilot said:
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
Criticism or review
News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
how much of the work was copied,
whether there were alternatives,
how widely it was distributed,
whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairness.
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
brief quotations,
attribution,
links,
French-language summaries,
discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
Sources
The US has 'fair use' laws on this. What is thesituation in Canada?
Copilot said:
Canada has something similar, but it's not the same as the U.S. "fair use" doctrine.
The U.S. system is relatively flexible. Courts weigh factors and can sometimes find a use fair even when it does not fall into a specific category.
Canada's system is called"fair dealing", and it is generally narrower. The use must first fit within certain purposes listed in the Copyright Act, such as research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Then the use must also be considered fair.
For bloggers, two categories are particularly relevant:
Criticism or review
News reporting
When relying on these exceptions, Canadian law requires identification of the source and, where provided, the author's name.
The courts also look at factors such as:
how much of the work was copied,
whether there were alternatives,
how widely it was distributed,
whether the use affects the market for the original work.
For your blogging practice, I'd look at it this way:
Likely stronger fair-dealing argument
"The Wall Street Journal published a piece on bond yields. Here are two paragraphs that I want to discuss. For my francophone readers, here is a French summary and my commentary."
That looks much more like criticism, review, news reporting, or commentary. You're using part of the work and adding something of your own.
Much weaker fair-dealing argument
Republishing an entire New York Times article from archive.ph so your readers can read it without visiting the Times.
At that point, you're much closer to substituting for the original publication, which is one of the things courts may consider when assessing fairness.
I should also mention one interesting Canadian wrinkle. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly described fair dealing as a"user's right", not merely a narrow loophole, so Canadian law is not hostile to fair dealing. At the same time, it is not as open-ended as American fair use.
From what you've described, I suspect your French summaries and commentary are your strongest position. If your goal is helping elderly or francophone readers understand articles they might not otherwise read, that is exactly the sort of original contribution that distinguishes your blog from a simple republication site.
As a practical matter, if I were running your blog under Canadian law, I would feel quite comfortable with:
brief quotations,
attribution,
links,
French-language summaries,
discussion and commentary,
and much less comfortable with posting a complete newspaper article, even an amusing short one. That's where the copyright risk starts to rise.
