Jump to content
Raven

General "mass killings" thread

Recommended Posts

America wouldn't have a civil war unless the military was split. The armed forces are just so ridiculously OP, basically nothing on the planet can stand against them unless they're packing nukes (any force Americans do end up fighting for protracted periods of time work more on utilizing the terrain to not lose, more so than win). And all but the craziest gun nuts would probably acknowledge that fact, or quickly learn to acknowledge it.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so this conversation happened on FOX News over the weekend... (no i wasn't watching FOX News--I was at my parent's house, and my dad had it on)
_____
FOX Host: "Lets talk about the big issue here. Punishment and deterrence. This is Texas. For the shooter--is the state going to be seeking the Death Penalty?

Texas Sheriff: "No. Thats against the law." 

FOX Host: "Its against the law to execute mass shooters. In Texas???"

Texas Sheriff: "Its against the law to give the death penalty to minors. The shooter was 17 years old."

FOX Host: "I've never heard of that. That's a Texas Law???"

Texas Sheriff: "No--that's federal law. Roper v. Simmons. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that its unconstitutional to give the death penalty to minors."

FOX Host: "But the law can change, right?"

Texas Sheriff: "...the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional..."

FOX Host: "Disgusting--I think many of our viewers are going to be as shocked to hear that as I am, Sheriff. Hopefully incidents like this make us take a closer look at this so-called 'law' and making some common-sense changes.'" 

Texas Sheriff:  "...."

FOX Host:  "..."

Texas Sheriff: "Thank you for having me on." *leaves awkwardly*
____________
  

^^^^Quality Journalism right there.
   

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Constitution is invoked only when it's convenient.

What a disappointing conversation.  Why are we crying for blood when so much has already been spilled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

What a disappointing conversation.  Why are we crying for blood when so much has already been spilled?

Because as long as people are wronged, they will wrong others. Vengeance is a powerful and evil thing, and many have lived and died because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Because as long as people are wronged, they will wrong others. Vengeance is a powerful and evil thing, and many have lived and died because of it.

They will wrong others just as well without any due cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Common-sense changes"

Mmmmmmmm yeeeeeeah okay then. Something tells me that simply granting the death penalty won't help improve the situation. Also, it irks me that the host says, "Disgusting--I think many of our viewers are going to be as shocked to hear that". Just feels kind of gross to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody commits a mass shooting, I doubt they expect to come out of that alive. So I really don't think that the death penalty of all things would be much of a deterrent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...so this conversation happened on FOX News over the weekend... (no i wasn't watching FOX News--I was at my parent's house, and my dad had it on)
_____
FOX Host: "Lets talk about the big issue here. Punishment and deterrence. This is Texas. For the shooter--is the state going to be seeking the Death Penalty?

Texas Sheriff: "No. Thats against the law." 

FOX Host: "Its against the law to execute mass shooters. In Texas???"

Texas Sheriff: "Its against the law to give the death penalty to minors. The shooter was 17 years old."

FOX Host: "I've never heard of that. That's a Texas Law???"

Texas Sheriff: "No--that's federal law. Roper v. Simmons. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that its unconstitutional to give the death penalty to minors."

FOX Host: "But the law can change, right?"

Texas Sheriff: "...the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional..."

FOX Host: "Disgusting--I think many of our viewers are going to be as shocked to hear that as I am, Sheriff. Hopefully incidents like this make us take a closer look at this so-called 'law' and making some common-sense changes.'" 

Texas Sheriff:  "...."

FOX Host:  "..."

Texas Sheriff: "Thank you for having me on." *leaves awkwardly*
____________
  

^^^^Quality Journalism right there.
   

Oh wow. You got a clip of that?

3 hours ago, BrightBow said:

If somebody commits a mass shooting, I doubt they expect to come out of that alive. So I really don't think that the death penalty of all things would be much of a deterrent.

I don't believe there's ever been any reliable evidence to suggest the death penalty has ever been a deterrent on any kind of crime.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 2:54 AM, Raven said:

Gotta admit, I got a laugh out of this:

Yeah, that's amusing.  Is that out of a publication, or just something that someone doodled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Yeah, that's amusing.  Is that out of a publication, or just something that someone doodled?

I found it posted on Reddit, but the main site seems to be here

Edited by Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2018 at 7:39 PM, Jotari said:

I don't believe there's ever been any reliable evidence to suggest the death penalty has ever been a deterrent on any kind of crime.

Nor do I. For that reason, along with the reasoning someone else said (why shed even more blood?), I oppose it in theory.

*In practice, on the other hand, I find myself screaming for blood when I hear of this kind of incidents.

Edited by Zawisza Czarny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2018 at 6:10 AM, Excellen Browning said:

Blanket ban and forced buyback would work wonders IMO.

I don't believe so. Your options are either the federal government going completely bankrupt or gun owners making significantly more money by selling their guns to third parties.

No way the government is offering above market price for firearms they just made illegal. I would say that they should halt sales in certain types of guns and grandfather in old gun owners of said guns, so long as they register their guns in a private database that a local gun owner is required to keep. Give like a six month long grace period to register firearms, where the police actively help such gun owners get to gun stores to register their firearms if caught. No registration fees either.

Making this an option instead of instituting forced buyback is probably better. I also say private, because setting up a government database is a setup for failure. Do you think these people who love their guns -- who think that the government taking away our firearms is the key to martial law -- would trust their shit on a government database? Your local arms dealer is fine. Of course, the main issue here is if businesses close. Maybe those can be transferred to the government and then from there the person can decide where his registration goes.

If they are found to have an unregistered illegal firearm in their possession after that grace period is over, then you figure out that punishment. I figure it would range from a fine to jail time depending on the legality of the gun at the time of purchase.

Also, taking away any loopholes about background checks, namely that dumb gun show loophole. Banning private sales is not out of the question either, but regulating them is probably far more effective.

Keep in mind I'm 100% against weaponry in every way, shape, or form. The majority of the US disagrees with me.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to get a system going where we regulate guns the same way we regulate cars. (i.e. license. registration. mandatory education courses and state evaluations prior to licensing.  Fines and criminal law penalties for unlicensed operation, unsafe operation, and unregistered transfers)

And you also have to look at the role of civil law in providing the correct incentives and disensentives for responsible behavior.
__________

...like this most recent shooting was one where the parent was one of those lawful, supposedly "responsible" gun owners. And the kid was able to carry out the school shooting because he had access to his parent's gun...

Sue Them. Sue the shooter's parents. Commence civil suit on a theory of negligence.  Allege that they breached a duty of reasonable care by failing to secure their firearms in a manner where they couldn't be used by their son, and that the direct-and-proximate cause of the shooting was their failure to exercise reasonable care in the safe storage of their firearms.

Rake them over the coals in court costs and damages--make an example of them.

And let gun owners across the country get that message loud-and-clear--if you own a gun and your child gets their hands on that gun and uses it to commit a crime, you have failed to behave in the manner which civil law expects a responsible gun owner should behave and you are liable for the damages of your child's crime. 

You know whats going to happen if you file that lawsuit and send that message?

You're going to have a lot fewer gun owners  keeping their guns in places where their kids can get them. And you're going to make it that much harder to carry out these kinds of attacks. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'd be happy to get a system going where we regulate guns the same way we regulate cars. (i.e. license. registration. mandatory education courses and state evaluations prior to licensing.  Fines and criminal law penalties for unlicensed operation, unsafe operation, and unregistered transfers)

[...]

Sue Them. Sue the shooter's parents. Commence civil suit on a theory of negligence.  Allege that they breached a duty of reasonable care by failing to secure their firearms in a manner where they couldn't be used by their son, and that the direct-and-proximate cause of the shooting was their failure to exercise reasonable care in the safe storage of their firearms.

Absolutely agree with everything you're saying. That it's impossible to get even basic controls like making gun ownership requirements analogous to car ownership is infuriating. Part of it is purely paranoia that Obama's secret lizard police are going to take everything they have, and then there's the gun manufacturers and retailers that simply value profits over human safety.

Also yeah, fuck those parents. Poor gun security is anti-vax level of shitty parenting.

52 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I'm 100% against weaponry in every way, shape, or form. The majority of the US disagrees with me.

Same, I can't stand the false sense of power people get and the Die Hard/Death Wish hero fantasy people think they're going to live out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

Keep in mind I'm 100% against weaponry in every way, shape, or form. The majority of the US disagrees with me.

Then you'd be banning like everything. So many things can become weapons. You can kill someone with a fucking pillow by holding it over their face and suffocating them. You can kill someone with a pencil by stabbing them in the face or chest with it. Hell, you could probably kill somebody with your smart phone by beating them over the head with it.

In fact, people don't even need other objects to kill other people! Someone can kill someone just by beating them to death with their own fists and feet. This is why much of the US disagrees with you.

Weapons don't kill people. People kill people. This country needs more people control, not gun/other weapon control. We need to be more aware of mental issues, and be more responsible with those who have mental issues that could lead to people harming themselves or others. Also be more aware of terrorists if there's a threat of terrorism. Crack down harder on illegal gun/other weapon sales and whatnot. This also includes securing the borders more because many guns/weapons are smuggled from out of the country as well. And no additional gun laws can do anything about that no matter how you slice it.

Yes, fewer people get hurt by knives or pillows or pencils or whatever than guns. But fewer still would get hurt if we controlled the people trying to get weapons rather than the weapons.

Take the guy who shot up that high school recently that JJ Watt paid for funerals for. I think he was mentally screwed up. With a gun, he killed quite a few people. If he could not get a gun, he probably would've grabbed knives and still killed a few people. But what if he'd been given necessary attention to his mental state? He probably would've never had the opportunity to grab any weapon or hurt anyone.

Obviously, no one can completely get rid of violent behavior 100%. But simply saying guns/weapons are the one and only problem is blind.

Just popped into say this and explain another point of view since I saw this sentence.

Edited by Anacybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'd be happy to get a system going where we regulate guns the same way we regulate cars. (i.e. license. registration. mandatory education courses and state evaluations prior to licensing.  Fines and criminal law penalties for unlicensed operation, unsafe operation, and unregistered transfers)

And you also have to look at the role of civil law in providing the correct incentives and disensentives for responsible behavior.
__________

...like this most recent shooting was one where the parent was one of those lawful, supposedly "responsible" gun owners. And the kid was able to carry out the school shooting because he had access to his parent's gun...

Sue Them. Sue the shooter's parents. Commence civil suit on a theory of negligence.  Allege that they breached a duty of reasonable care by failing to secure their firearms in a manner where they couldn't be used by their son, and that the direct-and-proximate cause of the shooting was their failure to exercise reasonable care in the safe storage of their firearms.

Rake them over the coals in court costs and damages--make an example of them.

And let gun owners across the country get that message loud-and-clear--if you own a gun and your child gets their hands on that gun and uses it to commit a crime, you have failed to behave in the manner which civil law expects a responsible gun owner should behave and you are liable for the damages of your child's crime. 

You know whats going to happen if you file that lawsuit and send that message?

You're going to have a lot fewer gun owners  keeping their guns in places where their kids can get them. And you're going to make it that much harder to carry out these kinds of attacks. 

Don't sue them. Pass a law that says you can in the future instead. Don't make an example of a family that is going through the same thing as the victims. Make it so an honest mistake made by one family isn't repeated by another. I know you are an expert in law, but Lady Justice isn't a subtle woman, and her tactlessness has destroyed honest people for mistakes even less foreseen than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Then you'd be banning like everything. So many things can become weapons. You can kill someone with a fucking pillow by holding it over their face and suffocating them. You can kill someone with a pencil by stabbing them in the face or chest with it. Hell, you could probably kill somebody with your smart phone by beating them over the head with it.

In fact, people don't even need other objects to kill other people! Someone can kill someone just by beating them to death with their own fists and feet. This is why much of the US disagrees with you.

Weapons don't kill people. People kill people. This country needs more people control, not gun/other weapon control. We need to be more aware of mental issues, and be more responsible with those who have mental issues that could lead to people harming themselves or others. Also be more aware of terrorists if there's a threat of terrorism.

Yes, fewer people get hurt by knives or pillows or pencils or whatever than guns. But fewer still would get hurt if we controlled the people trying to get weapons rather than the weapons.

Take the guy who shot up that high school recently that JJ Watt paid for funerals for. I think he was mentally screwed up. With a gun, he killed quite a few people. If he could not get a gun, he probably would've grabbed knives and still killed a few people. But what if he'd been given necessary attention to his mental state? He probably would've never had the opportunity to grab any weapon or hurt anyone.

Obviously, no one can completely get rid of violent behavior 100%. But simply saying guns/weapons are the one and only problem is blind.

Just popped into say this and explain another point of view since I saw this sentence.

It's not the only factor but it is one of many common denominators. I just wanted to quickly explain my actual viewpoint -- I'm wholly against guns because they are primary weaponry whereas most household knives aren't.

Rest of my post was about heavier gun regulation with a bunch of appeasement towards gun owners just due to the difference in perspective. Like, I personally find it baffling but I personally have my own reasons against government directories and I believe that gun owners feel the same way -- and, like me, it's about something they were told was a right growing up. I believe most of the US disagrees with me on more philosophical grounds, though. Keep in mind gun stocks spike after mass shootings due to the fear of government regulation. It's a sign of tyranny and their only hope against it. Especially when the president is not a Republican, even though legislation requires basically the majority of Congress to agree and they can't agree on regulations. It's definitely philosophical in nature, and based around self defense.

While you can kill anyone with anything, guns are primarily used to kill which is what distinguishes it from household knives. There are types of knives that are outright banned because of similar arguments that people use for guns now. The alternative to a gun for massacres is significantly more inefficient, and happen quite rarely and generally don't happen in a massacre-type setting.

Calling it a mental health issue is not great either. It's a factor but calling the shooter crazy (that's kind of the intent) when he has a manifesto and inevitably has sympathizers that agree with him does far more harm than good. Enacting legislation based on mental health care is not the way to go about it as a result. We should be aware that with freedom comes consequences and if certain freedoms are worth limiting to prevent consequences. While people do need to do better as a whole, it's not practical to help 350 million with mental health and micromanaging them especially while many want to own a firearm. There comes a point where there will be a few that ruin it for the rest. "Mental issue" is also extremely broad. For a more personal example I suffer from pretty bad depression (or used to, I'm riding an emotional high right now) but never once thought about performing a massacre. As it stands now, the Vegas shooter does not tick a lot of tick boxes for mass shootings that you list, including mental health, and he's not the only example.

The other issue I see -- and this is not directed at you because you haven't done this in recent memory -- is that these same arguments can be made to explain away most things (namely anything racist) but it is used disingenuously to thwart gun control efforts. That wasn't your intent but it just bothers me a lot.

I do love @Shoblongoos idea of social retribution. But what of people like in Pulse? That's one example of a shooting where the parent was at fault, but what about a lone wolf like in Pulse? There's a lot of lone wolfs out there that perform massacres.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

It's not the only factor but it is one of many common denominators. I just wanted to quickly explain my actual viewpoint -- I'm wholly against guns because they are primary weaponry whereas most household knives aren't.

Rest of my post was about heavier gun regulation with a bunch of appeasement towards gun owners just due to the difference in perspective. Like, I personally find it baffling but I personally have my own reasons against government directories and I believe that gun owners feel the same way -- and, like me, it's about something they were told was a right growing up. I believe most of the US disagrees with me on more philosophical grounds, though. Keep in mind gun stocks spike after mass shootings due to the fear of government regulation. It's a sign of tyranny and their only hope against it. Especially when the president is not a Republican, even though legislation requires basically the majority of Congress to agree and they can't agree on regulations. It's definitely philosophical in nature, and based around self defense.

While you can kill anyone with anything, guns are primarily used to kill which is what distinguishes it from household knives. There are types of knives that are outright banned because of similar arguments that people use for guns now. The alternative to a gun for massacres is significantly more inefficient, and happen quite rarely and generally don't happen in a massacre-type setting.

Calling it a mental health issue is not great either. It's a factor but calling the shooter crazy (that's kind of the intent) when he has a manifesto and inevitably has sympathizers that agree with him does far more harm than good. Enacting legislation based on mental health care is not the way to go about it as a result. We should be aware that with freedom comes consequences and if certain freedoms are worth limiting to prevent consequences. While people do need to do better as a whole, it's not practical to help 350 million with mental health and micromanaging them especially while many want to own a firearm. There comes a point where there will be a few that ruin it for the rest. "Mental issue" is also extremely broad. For a more personal example I suffer from pretty bad depression (or used to, I'm riding an emotional high right now) but never once thought about performing a massacre. As it stands now, the Vegas shooter does not tick a lot of tick boxes for mass shootings that you list, for the record, and he's not the only example.

The other issue I see -- and this is not directed at you because you haven't done this in recent memory -- is that these same arguments can be made to explain away most things (namely anything racist) but it is used disingenuously to thwart gun control efforts. That wasn't your intent but it just bothers me a lot.

I do love @Shoblongoos idea of social retribution. But what of people like in Pulse? That's one example of a shooting where the parent was at fault, but what about a lone wolf like in Pulse? There's a lot of lone wolfs out there that perform massacres.

Yes, it is A factor, I don't deny that. You just kinda came off as saying guns were the only one. Sorry if that wasn't your intent. I was just explaining the point of view of probably many people that you said disagree with you, is all.

Guns are the primary thing people use to kill because they can do the most damage. I bet if guns didn't exist, crime with knives and other stuff would be a lot more common and not much would've really changed. Maybe fewer deaths, but still enough to where people would complain.

Yeah, I did say that you can't make all violence completely disappear, so no, it's not practical to help 350 million people with mental health issues. I also doubt all 350 million of those people would actually ever pose a threat to themselves or others. Not every mental issue is dangerous. I'm technically mentally challenged myself being autistic, but I've never once considered grabbing a gun and shooting up some place. Hell, my disability would actually prevent me from doing so because it came with sensitive hearing. I could not possibly ever handle a gun no matter what. The shot would be too loud, even with ear plugs or something, I bet.

Yes, I know not all shooters check the boxes I listed. But many do.

But how can anyone agree with someone shooting up a school? Seriously. And some of these schools have young children. Sandy Hook, anyone? Someone would have to be a heartless monster to agree with having killed those poor six year old kids!

Edited by Anacybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My whole problem with Americans claiming that anything could be used as a weapon is that the US has usually around 5 times the homicide rate per 100,000 people compared to other first world and Western European countries.

Are Americans just far more suspectible to homicides or crime compared to other countries? I don't think so, and considering other crime statistics per country in general that's not really true either.

Using a gun is easy and accessible. You have to put a lot more effort into attacking someone with a knife, and it's quite unwieldy for your average user. I think it's rather obvious that I would rather get stabbed than shot.

I don't think one thing is ever going to be the solution, but people who act like Europe has it bad in terms of murders or attacks recently haven't looked at statistics for the US.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

But how can anyone agree with someone shooting up a school? Seriously. And some of these schools have young children. Sandy Hook, anyone? Someone would have to be a heartless monster to agree with having killed those poor six year old kids!

People outright believe they didn't happen or their circumstances were calculated by some higher entity (like a government or a deep state). These people are known to harass parents of victims for lying, and they're goaded on by Alex Jones and others who... Have the president's backing.

As for why someone would agree to it? Who knows. Some people have no agenda. Some people are sane and have an agenda. There are some that are very deliberate and very much do it because they can, not due to some mental illness necessarily.

Many feel shunned by society and rightfully so. They got out, kill, die, send a manifesto out. This manifesto resonates with a fringe of people and people make their killings and send theirs out. Elliott Rodgers is basically the face of Incel-based killings, and he said something about being great and women never having sex with him and being an eternal virgin. To a group of people who base their identities around this -- and they exist -- he's a woman killing, sorority killing freedom fighter. To us, he's a bad person, to say the least.

It's like how terrorists spread fear to pit people against their own. This makes people feel wanted -- these terrorists aren't that bad, they're just fighting back against an unjust government that doesn't support me... but without any sort of central authority so you end up with copycats who are inspired and willing to get their hands dirty to help their own. It's not a good thing, but that's how conflict has basically worked since inception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Pass a law that says you can in the future instead. 

I'm pretty sure you don't have to do that, because the law to do it already exists.

Its a common law tort of negligence.

The thing about civil law though is that someone who was damaged by your tort actually has to sue you for it.

If people don't exercise their right to sue then the law is toothless...so... 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

People outright believe they didn't happen or their circumstances were calculated by some higher entity (like a government or a deep state). These people are known to harass parents of victims for lying, and they're goaded on by Alex Jones and others who... Have the president's backing.

As for why someone would agree to it? Who knows. Some people have no agenda. Some people are sane and have an agenda. There are some that are very deliberate and very much do it because they can, not due to some mental illness necessarily.

Many feel shunned by society and rightfully so. They got out, kill, die, send a manifesto out. This manifesto resonates with a fringe of people and people make their killings and send theirs out. Elliott Rodgers is basically the face of Incel-based killings, and he said something about being great and women never having sex with him and being an eternal virgin. To a group of people who base their identities around this -- and they exist -- he's a woman killing, sorority killing freedom fighter. To us, he's a bad person, to say the least.

It's like how terrorists spread fear to pit people against their own. This makes people feel wanted -- these terrorists aren't that bad, they're just fighting back against an unjust government that doesn't support me... but without any sort of central authority so you end up with copycats who are inspired and willing to get their hands dirty to help their own. It's not a good thing, but that's how conflict has basically worked since inception.

Yeah, if you feel shunned by society or whatever, okay, that's one thing. But it doesn't give anyone the right to harm innocent people for what some other people might have done.

Also, "waaah, women never love me!" is a pretty piss poor reason to go and harm anyone.

Also, some terrorists just attack others because they don't believe as they do, you know. Al Quaeda saw us as enemies because we believed differently and did not agree with things they did, so as a result, we lost the Twin Towers, the Pentagon got a chunk of it blown away, and a plane ended up in the ground 80 miles outside my home city. They were radical Muslim terrorists. Radicals, of any religion or whatnot, believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is an enemy needing to be killed.

Edited by Anacybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anacybele said:

 

Also, "waaah, women never love me!" is a pretty piss poor reason to go and harm anyone.

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons why the Santa Fe shooter shot up his school is because he asked a girl out and she turned him down; which led to him stalking her. Or it could be that he was stalking her and then her asked out and got shut down. Either way, "waaah, women never love me!" and bullying certainly tipped the Santa Fe shooter over the edge.

Also before anyone mentions the "why don't you go and treat kids better and talk to the kids who get bullied and sit alone?" bullshit, I'll say this. Most of the time, these shooters have some kind of mental disorder (i.e. Anti-social personality disorder) that makes trying to talk to them like attempting to climb a smooth cliff without any climbing gear. Basically impossible. And the people who suggest this are often the "fuck your feelings snowflake!" people.

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Using a gun is easy and accessible. You have to put a lot more effort into attacking someone with a knife, and it's quite unwieldy for your average user. I think it's rather obvious that I would rather get stabbed than shot.

I'd rather have a wanna-be mass murderer to get creative than be able to easily gun down a crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Anacybele said:

Yeah, if you feel shunned by society or whatever, okay, that's one thing. But it doesn't give anyone the right to harm innocent people for what some other people might have done.

Also, "waaah, women never love me!" is a pretty piss poor reason to go and harm anyone.

Also, some terrorists just attack others because they don't believe as they do, you know. Al Quaeda saw us as enemies because we believed differently and did not agree with things they did, so as a result, we lost the Twin Towers, the Pentagon got a chunk of it blown away, and a plane ended up in the ground 80 miles outside my home city. They were radical Muslim terrorists. Radicals, of any religion or whatnot, believe that anyone who doesn't believe as they do is an enemy needing to be killed.

Well, here's the thing: by saying all this, I condemn it. But in search of a solution, you can't nullify their feelings. And as it stands, these have been reasons for shootings. It's another common denominator and such movements exist.

Also, when you bring up Al Qaeda, you should keep in mind a few things. Attacks in the West from terrorism have been largely first generation immigrants simply because of the difficulty of fitting in. It often comes out in the form of a bunch of social abuse.

Imagine a boy. People make fun of him all the time in school. People beat him up, treat him like shit, he has no friends or close friends. After his daily beating -- and may or may not be assisted by worse goings on at home. Let's say no. But basically, he is isolated and alone. In some cases, these people don't talk to anyone.

Then they go online. Let's say to serenes. They meet a user on there. "Oh you're going through this too? Man I hate it. It all sucks. I wish they'd die or get beaten up or learn their lesson." Just a one off comment, seems innocuous cause people say things out of emotion. It's a red flag but nobody's really watching, to be honest, so nobody sees it. That friend takes them to a similar community.

They accept him. They tell him he's a great person. They offer an explanation for why the world is as is that's not outright hateful, but the explanations continue to be more hateful.

"It's (((them)))"

"The immigrants are coming in and that's why you can't get laid; they're raping our women before we can" (definitely something I've read before, I am not exaggerating)

"It's the people at school! School sucks and they should all die."

Then their hatred gets so intense that any mention that certain people are breathing is an attack on them. The existence of people become offensive and dangerous. Not their actions, their existence. Then they go out and shoot when their feelings of anger are strong enough. They even have a symbol for their movement sometimes.

The issue is that these things don't happen in a vacuum. The people I'm talking about aren't necessarily bad people, but it's a case of needing to fit in, and they got that somewhere else and were willing to die for a cause.

Then you have cases where the intent was not known, like in Vegas. That brings us to guns as a common denominator.

I'm not justifying it. I'm 10000% condemning their actions. It's just not productive to condemn them. Things don't get done by staring. You have to learn about what we as a people or society can do to make sure people a) don't feel the need to do this and b) don't have access to ways to kill a bunch of people at once. And the solutions are often very uncomfortable, because it means actively reaching out to communities and people that society waives off as weird and cold or something.

This has been another common denominator among shootings and thwarted shooters (boy do I have an anecdote to this that hits close to home in so many ways about a guy I went to high school with).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...