In November a fire at the Tazreen Fashions factory in Bangladesh killed at least 112 garment workers and injured over 200 more.  Since then there have been 41 more fires in Bangladesh garment factories, killing 9 and injuring 660.  In the past decade 600 garment workers have died in Bangladesh, and that was before more than 600 people were killed when the Rana Plaza building collapsed a few weeks ago.  Shortly before this happened workers reported hearing a noise like an explosion on the third floor, and an engineer, horrified by cracks he found in the support pillars, told administrators that the building must be evacuated.  It wasn’t.

On May 4^th Bangladesh’s Finance Minister commented on the Rana Plaza collapse, saying it wasn’t “really serious.”  Walmart, which sells clothing manufactured in Third World countries including Bangladesh, has stopped doing business with the most blatantly unsafe factories (though work is often subcontracted to these places anyway).  But retailers like the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic have refused to take any action to improve working conditions, saying they “did not want to pay factories more money to help with safety upgrades.”

Garment workers in Bangladesh make a whopping $38 per month.  Low wages and an abject disregard for worker safety have allowed large corporations to make a lot of money selling clothing manufactured in countries like Bangladesh.  Many corporations today tout their social responsibility programs, yet despite claims they are working to prevent more disasters, these tragedies keep happening.

But that’s to be expected in the Third World.  America is different; after the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911, where the exits were blocked and 146 young women died, worker safety has been a government concern, and workplace safety – as well as programs that help workers who are injured on the job – have made the American worker one of the safest in the world.

But these programs impose regulations.  And in a deeply divided country where many see regulations as yet another sign of a broken government, some states – especially Texas – have done their best to skirt them.

Texas, which has no state occupational safety program, has an occupational fatality rate twice that of California.  Worker compensation programs are voluntary, which leaves many workers without insurance in the case of an injury.  But Texas isn’t just morally opposed to worker safety; zoning laws are so limited that schools, apartments and nursing homes can be built near dangerous industrial sites.

Texas has experienced some of the worst industrial accidents in history, including the 1947 Texas City fertilizer explosion that killed over 500 people.  When a fertilizer plant in West, Texas, exploded on April 17^th it killed 14 residents – mostly first responders – injured more than 150 and leveled scores of homes. Yet an assistant Fire Marshall dismissed it as an “act of God” – something that couldn’t have been foreseen or prevented.  This despite the fact that the fertilizer plant hadn’t been inspected since 1985, was guilty of numerous safety violations and was improperly storing huge amounts of explosive ammonium nitrate.

“It’s not anything that anybody thought could happen,” said an official of the adjacent – and now demolished — school.  But that isn’t true.  Texas, like Bangladesh, has profited by lax safety regulations – despite repeated examples of why regulations are necessary.  Everybody knew something like this could happen – they just didn’t care.

Though regulations can be a pain, to ignore safety measures for the sake of profit is deplorable.  Yet some continue to see it as “good business.”  Until humanity evolves beyond valuing profit over lives, the need for strong safety regulations will remain vital.

When he learned of the bombings at the Boston Marathon, my 14-year-old son, Thomas, remarked wearily, “when they catch whoever did it, it will be young, middle-class white males…”   And though the alleged bombers weren’t born in this country, they fit this description pretty well.

So how did he come so close in his profile of the bombers?  He says it was easy – it’s always young, middle-class white males who commit massacres.  Young, middle-class white males have been responsible for many such crimes, including just recently the Sandy Hook massacre, the Aurora, Colorado, theatre massacre as well as the shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 of her constituents.

Though Thomas didn’t know it, Charlotte and Harriet Childress recently wrote about this in The Washington Post, observing that “month after month, year after year” it is white men and teenagers who go on mass killing sprees.  These authors note that while these males make up 30% of our population, they commit at least 70% of mass killings.

In their article these women note that the National Rifle Association blames massacres on the mentally ill and indeed, these killers may be insane.  But mental illness is not confined to white males.  These authors point out that mentally ill females “are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren.”

The authors note that white males are the main players of violent video games and ask, “Why do white males buy guns in far larger numbers than other groups, and why are so many of them bitterly opposed to even reasonable gun-control proposals?” The authors go on to say that while society is loath to discuss it, white males are the cause of a violent social pathology.

I don’t mean to suggest that all white males are pathological, and clearly gun violence is a problem among minority groups, especially in the inner city.  Many – in fact most – white male gun owners never harm another person.  But with incredibly lethal semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines available to anyone who wants them, a handful of white males have turned American schools and shopping malls into their own perverse shooting gallery (remember the Von Maur shootings in Omaha?).

Males of any race can be violent, and women kill people too.  But this violence is generally targeted at rival gang members or an abusive spouse.  There is something different about people who set out to kill as many strangers as possible, and sadly, Charlotte and Harriet Childress are correct that this difference – whatever it may be — is particularly evident in white males.  To call it a “social pathology” may seem extreme, yet maybe we have to see it this way before we can finally do something about it.

Guns don’t kill people, after all – people do.  And while we’ve all heard about the racial profiling of minorities, when it comes to racial profiling for potential mass murderers, all one need look for is, as my 14-year-old son has already figured out, “young, middle-class white males.”

What makes young, middle-class white males so prone to violence?  Are they victims of what some call America’s “gun culture” – a culture that glorifies violence and gun ownership?  If so, how did such a culture evolve?  Who has benefited from a culture of violence?  Hollywood?  Gun manufacturers?  Have these industries profited by appealing to what’s worst in us?

There’s much more behind mass killings than movies and marketing.  However, looking at the white male fascination with violence in terms of preventing it — rather than exploiting it — could do much to help stem this crimson tide of blood and pain.