Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[DixieGal]

I know, just blowing off steam. It takes a lot to make me angry, but that shooting last week did it. That lowlife killed OTHER immigrants, people who were studying to become good US citizens instead of going on killing rampages. I taught those classes under a gvt grant for 5 years, and nothing made me angrier than newcomers who arrived with a sense of entitlement, but felt like victims when their plans didn't work out exactly as they expected.

I'm very very angry about last week's massacre.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I think she's probably responding to the dismal turn that the news cycle has taken in that the criminal was "upset" about something and that is the reason he did it.

What is wrong with that reasoning? That there is a reason does not mean that it is OK.

[astra]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I know, just blowing off steam. It takes a lot to make me angry, but that shooting last week did it. That lowlife killed OTHER immigrants, people who were studying to become good US citizens instead of going on killing rampages. I taught those classes under a gvt grant for 5 years, and nothing made me angrier than newcomers who arrived with a sense of entitlement, but felt like victims when their plans didn't work out exactly as they expected.

I'm very very angry about last week's massacre.

I feel for you Dixie.
I went through 2 immigrations myself and I hate immigrants who are "looking for an easy life", and then bite the hand that feeds them. I have zero tolerance for this type of people. Don't like? Not as easy as you thought it should be? Go home! Don't want to go home? Then work hard and earn the right to be happy and be grateful to your host for provide this opportunity for you.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is wrong with that reasoning? That there is a reason does not mean that it is OK.

Sorry, I was short handing my response because work keeps intruding on my real life. The news heads are starting to "explain" the behavior of the shooter by saying that he was "disturbed" and that he felt upset because people were making fun of him and that he was an immigrant who was out of work because of the economy, etc. They don't come right out and say it, but there is an undercurrent of "this is what happens when..." that would lead one to believe that it was the victims' fault that the shooter was upset to begin with.

Basically, it was a guy with paranoid tendncies who was signalling that he was disturbed and then picked up his gun and started killing people. There is no need to give sensitivity training to the Greater New York Area to prevent this from happening again.

[ahammer]

No one plans or carries out a crime with the deterrent in mind. The idea is to get away with it, or get killed .... or the crime had an unintended consequence.

The death penalty makes the survivors and society (or at least some people in society) feel better .... like they are doing something proactive to prevent future crime. They aren't actually, but it's one of those lovely societal delusions that we all fall into because .... well, just because.

I like to bring up two point around this if I can

1) when every one can have guns it seems to me that crimals (<.> cant spell). are more likly to think they may die from robing somone(or other crimes). that is why you see some crime rates go down in areas with more guns( base on what I have seen in number dont have any to back me up right now and what I have seen in the area where I live). I know that the people that rob places see if you have guns if you do they skip your home in this area (like 15mins from the cops so that most people do have guns) . just smart realy(exp junkys that dont realy do this but not that kind of area here.).

2) I think the point is if you put somone to death they will not be able to do any more crime. even if somone gets life (and our not that old) in our system the way it is they will still get out more then likly before they die. with death at that point you our sure that will not happen.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Now, how many people have been killed in mass murders by bombs, just in the UK and Europe? More than 13 at a pop in several instances?? Are you all certain you have adequate controls in place for those weapons?? Where was all that public outrage after the 7/7 bombings? Did you all ban the possession of the items used for making those bombs??

So unless we ban all potentially lethal weapons (or components) we're hypocritical US- or 2nd amendment bashers if we only ban some (and the ones that are currently being used the most at that)?
Neat.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must very respectfully disagree with you, astra. Our police are not "unarmed" - they just don't carry guns. They do, however, have a baton and a canister of pepper spray.

Except for when the MPS used that Brazilian electrician, de Menezes, as target practice.?

[slayda]

You know, murder also correlates to population. The higher the population, the more murders you have, so to minimize murders, you just have to minimize the population. Eureka! The solution to murder is zero population, or as you might say in pseudo mathematics, murders ends as population approaches zero. And the number of guns becomes irrelevant.

This also takes care of many other social ills, such as poverty, hunger, war, etc.

And Ricky, the death penalty does have, at least, a minor deterrent. The person put to death is deterred from further murders.

[astra]

Originally Posted by slayda

And Ricky, the death penalty does have, at least, a minor deterrent. The person put to death is deterred from further murders.

Quite true.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm honestly not condemning anyone, DixieGal - except, of course, the people who carry out these dreadful crimes. Just saying that I believe that there is a correlation between the high number of these tragic "mass murders" and the easy availability of firearms. That appears (to me, at least) to be a pretty self-evident thing.

Then why isn't the murder rate higher in Switzerland? If gun availability causes gun murders, that should be apparent in every country that has high gun availability.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Then why isn't the murder rate higher in Switzerland? If gun availability causes gun murders, that should be apparent in every country that has high gun availability.

If you take 1000 people and placed them into a room with a loaded gun and came back in an hour you'd find them all alive and healthy if they are decent people. In fact, if any of them had firearms experience chances are you'd come back to find the gun unloaded to prevent any accidents.

The problem is we live in a culture of violence. This has nothing to do with gun-ownership, or hunting, or the war in Iraq. It has to do with surrounding people, day-in day-out with glorified images of violence and victimization. Watching a violent movie, tv show or sport and listening to violent music doesn't make someone into a criminal. I enjoy hardcore industrial and death metal myself, though I also enjoy classical. It is when this is the only life, the only world people know that they begin to act accordingly. If you want to brainwash someone you subject them to a topic repeatedly until their brain simply reprograms itself, this is no different. This doesn't alleviate responsibility on the part of the criminal but does contribute.

When you live in a world of violence and false victimization (there is real victimization don't get me wrong) and learn that the only way to advance in life or earn respect from your peers or make a name for yourself is to behave in similar fashion what do we expect? Why is it that today we are fearful of a teenager having his hands on a baseball bat yet millions of school students over this past century, right up to the 1990's in many parts of the country carried rifles and shotguns to school during hunting seasons. Strangely those kids, and kids that are in competitive shooting seem to get by without trying to kill fellow children.

Unfortunately with all the many great concepts and accomplishments of the U.S. this seems to be one of the major contributions we are making to the world. Slowly but surely many other nations are following suit. At some point we replaced the Melting Pot with the Cult of Violence and Victimization. Before anyone makes an assumption then I am focusing on one group I am not at all, if anything the poor are most susceptable but it happens to every group and demographic in the nation.

My solution would be to end bullshit Wars on victimless crimes, bring back personal responsibility and end our focus on criminals as victims, hold the criminals, media and politicians responsible for their actions. You'd be better off getting rid of fluffy PC sensitivity training for children at school and just handing them a booklet entitled, "Here is the World, Life is Hard, Deal with It." Being respectful of others and not discriminating for whatever reason is fundamental, but that isn't what we are teaching them. We are teaching them what about themselves makes them a victim, how to take any situation or event and twist details around to show that you are being victimized and finally how best to exploit that.

Why is it guns are used 4 times as often to defend oneself or family then is used in crimes and yet over the past decade the amount of times any of those stories have been told by any of the mainstream news programs could be counted on your fingers, literally. As I said in a previous post they claim to not want to promote vigilantism. If the images and stories focused on by the media would result in emulation by the populace what does that say about the current programs? It directly feeds into my viewpoint of our culture. You tell me which is worse? Promoting safe and responsible gun ownership and showcasing the actions of those owners -OR- promoting illegal activities by criminals while using those acts as a means of self-promotion and self-gratification?

-MJ

[tompe]

Originally Posted by slayda

And Ricky, the death penalty does have, at least, a minor deterrent. The person put to death is deterred from further murders.

The same can be said of the person put in prison for life.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by tompe

The same can be said of the person put in prison for life.

Except that they may be paroled or escape & a life sentence usually is not a sentence for the rest of their life. In addition, there are people in prison (both guards and inmates) who might be murdered. If there were a way to remove a murderer from our society, with a 100% assurance that they could not ever return under any circumstances, I would be happy with that in lieu of the death penalty.

Originally Posted by mjh215

If you take 1000 people and placed them into a room

they'd probably suffocate.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by mjh215

If you take 1000 people and placed them into a room with a loaded gun and came back in an hour you'd find them all alive and healthy if they are decent people. In fact, if any of them had firearms experience chances are you'd come back to find the gun unloaded to prevent any accidents.

The problem is we live in a culture of violence. This has nothing to do with gun-ownership, or hunting, or the war in Iraq. It has to do with surrounding people, day-in day-out with glorified images of violence and victimization. Watching a violent movie, tv show or sport and listening to violent music doesn't make someone into a criminal. I enjoy hardcore industrial and death metal myself, though I also enjoy classical. It is when this is the only life, the only world people know that they begin to act accordingly. If you want to brainwash someone you subject them to a topic repeatedly until their brain simply reprograms itself, this is no different. This doesn't alleviate responsibility on the part of the criminal but does contribute.

When you live in a world of violence and false victimization (there is real victimization don't get me wrong) and learn that the only way to advance in life or earn respect from your peers or make a name for yourself is to behave in similar fashion what do we expect? Why is it that today we are fearful of a teenager having his hands on a baseball bat yet millions of school students over this past century, right up to the 1990's in many parts of the country carried rifles and shotguns to school during hunting seasons. Strangely those kids, and kids that are in competitive shooting seem to get by without trying to kill fellow children.

Unfortunately with all the many great concepts and accomplishments of the U.S. this seems to be one of the major contributions we are making to the world. Slowly but surely many other nations are following suit. At some point we replaced the Melting Pot with the Cult of Violence and Victimization. Before anyone makes an assumption then I am focusing on one group I am not at all, if anything the poor are most susceptable but it happens to every group and demographic in the nation.

My solution would be to end bullshit Wars on victimless crimes, bring back personal responsibility and end our focus on criminals as victims, hold the criminals, media and politicians responsible for their actions. You'd be better off getting rid of fluffy PC sensitivity training for children at school and just handing them a booklet entitled, "Here is the World, Life is Hard, Deal with It." Being respectful of others and not discriminating for whatever reason is fundamental, but that isn't what we are teaching them. We are teaching them what about themselves makes them a victim, how to take any situation or event and twist details around to show that you are being victimized and finally how best to exploit that.

Why is it guns are used 4 times as often to defend oneself or family then is used in crimes and yet over the past decade the amount of times any of those stories have been told by any of the mainstream news programs could be counted on your fingers, literally. As I said in a previous post they claim to not want to promote vigilantism. If the images and stories focused on by the media would result in emulation by the populace what does that say about the current programs? It directly feeds into my viewpoint of our culture. You tell me which is worse? Promoting safe and responsible gun ownership and showcasing the actions of those owners -OR- promoting illegal activities by criminals while using those acts as a means of self-promotion and self-gratification?

-MJ

I agree with everything you say, except this one premise: 1,000 people in a closed room will result in all of them coming out alive and healthy. That presumption would work as long as they ARE mentally healthy to begin with. But isn't that part of the problem: we DON'T know who is healthy and who isn't. All it takes is that one person, and then chaos happens.

Other than that, your logic and your words are beautifully coherent for me.

Don

[mjh215]

Thanks Don, perhaps I chose my wording poorly. I thought "if they are decent people" worked, but equating decent with stable was probably a bad idea. Though I think if a person is unstable but decent they would probably just shoot themselves instead of others. In fact I can't tell you how much happier I'd be if all these murderers and mass-murderers had simply chosen to kill themselves! I'd rather see everyone alive and well, but if they insist on killing someone, let it be themselves.

Maybe suicide booths ARE the solution?

-MJ

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you don't think that organisations such as the IRA, ETA, etc, have political goals? They would certainly disagree with you.

Of course they do, Harry. Don't be absurd. However, if an organized group kills a bunch of people using poison is the motive still political? Or is it only when they use a bomb?

The weapon does not change the motivation and it doesn't create the motivation. Never has, and never will. The fact that someone decides to use a bomb doesn't make the killing a "political statement" .... it makes it a "bombing."

If you really want to suggest that all bombings are politically motivated, which is basically what pshrynk stated and which I completely disagreed with, then the four little girls who were killed when their church was bombed by the Klu Klux Klan were murdered because of their politics?? Gee, and I thought it was because they had dark skin.

It was a church "bombing" .... not a political statement. It was a bunch of stupid white men filled with racial hatred ... not a political statement. If the boys at Columbine had managed to detonate the bombs they brought, would it suddenly have become a political statement? Gee, who knew.