Father/Daughter Shot Dead; Wounded Mom Shepherds Kids to Safety

[Pogo]

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

 

[westwall]

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

 

[Pogo]

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

 

[westwall]

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

 

[Pogo]

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

Oh poster please. Post 122? Condescend much?

There have been plentiful, documentable societies that, while not free of violence entirely, have rendered it all but nonexistent via their value systems. That's where it's at -- we shoot, we kill, etc out of a cultural value of overpowering everything. That is in no way the only way the Life Energy works. The Adam Lanzas, the James Holmeses, the Wade Michael Pages, they're not so much the outliers we would nervously portray them to be in an effort to put distance 'twixt us and them. They are in fact consummating what we've all been taught. They reflect our values -- specifically the value that when you have a problem, the thing to do is overpower it and blow it away. That's stupid, but that's what they were taught because that's what we're all taught. So there's an element of hypocrisy in pointing at these guys and bellowing "what could have got into them?". We all know damn well what got into them.

It's doubtlessly got a lot to do with our perverse definitions of masculinity (pop quiz: how many mass shooters --ever-- have been female?) --- which is why these events are all about power. Burying one's head in the sand and declaring what one sees is all there is, is self-limiting. And coupled with your basic paranoia begets, once again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that ensures that the situation self-perpetutes, forever.

Again -- not buying it. We can, should, and must aim higher than that.

 

[westwall]

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

Oh poster please. Post 122? Condescend much?

There have been plentiful, documentable societies that, while not free of violence entirely, have rendered it all but nonexistent via their value systems. That's where it's at -- we shoot, we kill, etc out of a cultural value of overpowering everything. That is in no way the only way the Life Energy works. The Adam Lanzas, the James Holmeses, the Wade Michael Pages, they're not so much the outliers we would nervously portray them to be in an effort to put distance 'twixt us and them. They are in fact consummating what we've all been taught. They reflect our values -- specifically the value that when you have a problem, the thing to do is overpower it and blow it away. That's stupid, but that's what they were taught because that's what we're all taught. So there's an element of hypocrisy in pointing at these guys and bellowing "what could have got into them?". We all know damn well what got into them.

It's doubtlessly got a lot to do with our perverse definitions of masculinity (pop quiz: how many mass shooters --ever-- have been female?) --- which is why these events are all about power. Burying one's head in the sand and declaring what one sees is all there is, is self-limiting. And coupled with your basic paranoia begets, once again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that ensures that the situation self-perpetutes, forever.

Again -- not buying it. We can, should, and must aim higher than that.

Present them then. And yes, you are worthy of condescension.

 

[eots]

Man stabs 4 school kids to death
2014-09-26 11:18

Beijing – A knife-wielding man stabbed to death four primary school children in southern China, the latest in a series of such attacks in recent years.
Man stabs 4 school kids to death News24

 

[Pogo]

^^ Completely off topic.

 

[EverCurious]

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

My statement didn't take any part of your post out of context... I strip that shit so that people could see the specific point /I/ was addressing. As I did not intend to address the entirety of your post, because I only had a comment regarding a specific point - aka the one I quoted, I quoted merely that point.

In any event, I did not specifically mean 'you' per say, though admittedly I did presume from your commentary. Regardless though, I should have said "one" meaning "those wanting to ban guns" as I typically would, but I was distracted by my pup. My apology for that confusion.

Back to the debate: So you will acknowledge the psychological drive one way (in that the killer wants the thrill and notability), but then you turn around and discount the psychological drive in another way (that with an armed society the killer understands there is a possibility that he may not get that thrill.) Please explain how your "thrill seeker" or "power" mentality position can completely disregard my "fear of armed citizen" affect.


You are trying to tip-toe the "thinking" of a killer, but not going deep enough to actually argue a valid point here. To do so we would have to qualify murderer's; like the "determined" killer - for which there really is no defense because they are /determined/ to kill someone. The "opportunistic" killer - who kills because they can get away with it. The "thrill seeker" killer - who kills for the thrill of blood or power. The "suicidal" killer - who just wants to kill someone before they commit suicide (which is maybe the same as a "fame" killer) and etc.

Banning guns is not a guarantee to stop all those types killers because all it 'really' does is take away the "range" advantage, and possibly the "number" of kills - though that's debatable as a killer with a knife is not only limited to /one/ throat slashing, or a killer with a knife is not limited to smashing in only /one/ skull. What /is/ guaranteed is that with a gun ban is that the victim is 90% of the time going to be unarmed and pretty much has a 0 range for their defense. Unarmed victim 90% of the time because that's /about/ the number of people who are physically strong enough to fight off an attacker with a gun, bat, or tire iron; though its debatable that the non-gun armed killer would even choose to mess with a "strong" victim anyway, unless they were a "suicide" killer...

With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.

There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...

Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.

Drama queen much? War zone? Seriously? Should I even /bother/ responding to your bullshit anymore if you are going to be so disingenuous and full of shit?

If someone intends to do me harm, then I /should/ be able to defend myself. As I am not a /strong/ person, I would be /fucked/ so I guess I should just sit there and take it then? At least with a gun I have a chance and if I kill that fucker in the attempt to harm me, that's a "war-zone" in your opinion? I am so glad I live in /my/ world with a second amendment, not your fantasy land where I'm basically sacrificed so all the anti-gun people can have the "illusion" of being safe...

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

So you think that someone who desires to kill a bunch of people is /not/ an animal? I disagree...

 

[Pogo]

This is long so I'll break it into its separate parts...

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

My statement didn't take any part of your post out of context... I strip that shit so that people could see the specific point /I/ was addressing. As I did not intend to address the entirety of your post, because I only had a comment regarding a specific point - aka the one I quoted, I quoted merely that point.

In any event, I did not specifically mean 'you' per say, though admittedly I did presume from your commentary. Regardless though, I should have said "one" meaning "those wanting to ban guns" as I typically would, but I was distracted by my pup. My apology for that confusion.

Back to the debate: So you will acknowledge the psychological drive one way (in that the killer wants the thrill and notability), but then you turn around and discount the psychological drive in another way (that with an armed society the killer understands there is a possibility that he may not get that thrill.) Please explain how your "thrill seeker" or "power" mentality position can completely disregard my "fear of armed citizen" affect.

Not sure what this means -- you mean the possibility that he may be stopped when it turns out his target (or someone nearby) is also armed?

I don't think that enters into such a person's head, or if it does it just adds to the "adventure". Somewhere in there they all know that unless they have an escape planned, they're going down themselves, and want to run up as much of a "score" as possible before that point, preferably staying aware enough of any such return fire that they can inflict their own demise themselves, as they so often do. I'd guess his worst nightmare scenario would be getting wounded by a bullet he didn't see coming, then taken prisoner alive before he could kill himself, and then have to live through a trial. Obviously that's not what they plan on -- that's their Murphy's Law.

Banning guns is not a guarantee to stop all those types killers because all it 'really' does is take away the "range" advantage, and possibly the "number" of kills - though that's debatable as a killer with a knife is not only limited to /one/ throat slashing, or a killer with a knife is not limited to smashing in only /one/ skull. What /is/ guaranteed is that with a gun ban is that the victim is 90% of the time going to be unarmed and pretty much has a 0 range for their defense. Unarmed victim 90% of the time because that's /about/ the number of people who are physically strong enough to fight off an attacker with a gun, bat, or tire iron; though its debatable that the non-gun armed killer would even choose to mess with a "strong" victim anyway, unless they were a "suicide" killer...

I agree, banning guns doesn't stop anything. I've always said that -- it's nothing more than throwing legislation at the problem and telling yourself you 'did something'. If God Herself came down at lunchtime and declared, "that's it, nobody's making any more guns" we'd still have more than enough to arm every man woman and child we have, and the black market on them would continue to flourish. Nothing changes until we change our values of how we perceive and use them.

 

[westwall]

^^ Completely off topic.

You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.

 

[EverCurious]

This is long so I'll break it into its separate parts...

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

My statement didn't take any part of your post out of context... I strip that shit so that people could see the specific point /I/ was addressing. As I did not intend to address the entirety of your post, because I only had a comment regarding a specific point - aka the one I quoted, I quoted merely that point.

In any event, I did not specifically mean 'you' per say, though admittedly I did presume from your commentary. Regardless though, I should have said "one" meaning "those wanting to ban guns" as I typically would, but I was distracted by my pup. My apology for that confusion.

Back to the debate: So you will acknowledge the psychological drive one way (in that the killer wants the thrill and notability), but then you turn around and discount the psychological drive in another way (that with an armed society the killer understands there is a possibility that he may not get that thrill.) Please explain how your "thrill seeker" or "power" mentality position can completely disregard my "fear of armed citizen" affect.

Not sure what this means -- you mean the possibility that he may be stopped when it turns out his target (or someone nearby) is also armed?

I don't think that enters into such a person's head, or if it does it just adds to the "adventure". Somewhere in there they all know that unless they have an escape planned, they're going down themselves, and want to run up as much of a "score" as possible before that point, preferably staying aware enough of any such return fire that they can inflict their own demise themselves, as they so often do. I'd guess his worst nightmare scenario would be getting wounded by a bullet he didn't see coming, then taken prisoner alive before he could kill himself, and then have to live through a trial. Obviously that's not what they plan on -- that's their Murphy's Law.

You are trying to tip-toe the "thinking" of a killer, but not going deep enough to actually argue a valid point here. To do so we would have to qualify murderer's; like the "determined" killer - for which there really is no defense because they are /determined/ to kill someone. The "opportunistic" killer - who kills because they can get away with it. The "thrill seeker" killer - who kills for the thrill of blood or power. The "suicidal" killer - who just wants to kill someone before they commit suicide (which is maybe the same as a "fame" killer) and etc.

 

[2aguy]

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

Oh poster please. Post 122? Condescend much?

There have been plentiful, documentable societies that, while not free of violence entirely, have rendered it all but nonexistent via their value systems. That's where it's at -- we shoot, we kill, etc out of a cultural value of overpowering everything. That is in no way the only way the Life Energy works. The Adam Lanzas, the James Holmeses, the Wade Michael Pages, they're not so much the outliers we would nervously portray them to be in an effort to put distance 'twixt us and them. They are in fact consummating what we've all been taught. They reflect our values -- specifically the value that when you have a problem, the thing to do is overpower it and blow it away. That's stupid, but that's what they were taught because that's what we're all taught. So there's an element of hypocrisy in pointing at these guys and bellowing "what could have got into them?". We all know damn well what got into them.

It's doubtlessly got a lot to do with our perverse definitions of masculinity (pop quiz: how many mass shooters --ever-- have been female?) --- which is why these events are all about power. Burying one's head in the sand and declaring what one sees is all there is, is self-limiting. And coupled with your basic paranoia begets, once again, a self-fulfilling prophecy. And that ensures that the situation self-perpetutes, forever.

Again -- not buying it. We can, should, and must aim higher than that.

Actually, you are wrong....of course, killers are outliers.......they don't reflect our values because they are sociopaths.....

 

[Ernie S.]

No I don't think "more efficiently" is arguable. If that were the case the invention of firearm technology would have been a failure.

("failure" meaning in the sense of popular/widely used of course, not the ethical sense)

Nor can I agree that propensity to murder leads gun violence; rather the technology --- and its very efficiency -- leads to that violence.

Again, random gun nuts going off like this are not out for "murder" per se. Murder is when you catch your spouse in the act. It's specific and personally targeted. The goal here is carnage, visual, aural sensory input of blood and screams and targets running for their lives in fear. Only a gun delivers that. In a way it's more akin to rape than murder, because at the psychological base it's about power (i.e. lack thereof). Firearms deliver instant, if perverse, access to ultimate power.

Murders, intentional targeted ones, can be and certainly are committed by firearms, as are suicides. Part of the same efficiency factor. Without firearms, they would still happen, though to a lesser extent due to the same efficiency factor.

But this sort of random picking off innocent strangers would not.

Oh I think you might be mistaken on that, a particularly nasty knife crime gets all of the above in a far more "sensational" way... They use guns because their afraid to get close to their victim's, they use guns to maintain an advantage in the fight; distance. You could argue that taking guns away means they have to get closer and risk getting disarmed, but that relies on the victim being strong enough to repel their attack. If you ban guns then you have these fucks finding another weapon to hunt with, and facing, a population who isn't /allowed/ to be armed, someone who's got a bat or a tire iron.

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.

There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...

Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey. Man though, is the only "prey" creature that can fight back with better then poor odds in their favor. When a mountain lion attacks a deer the deer usually loses. Occasionally the deer gets the pyhrric victory of doing enough damage to also kill the mountain lion, but that is rare. Far more rare is the deer that kills the mountain lion and gets to walk away.

Mankind though has developed weapons that make everyone equal. No more can the 225 pound, MMA practicing, steroid addled man, assault, and rape or kill, the 95 pound, comparatively feeble woman, with impunity. She can fight back. The reality is that your world doesn't exist. It has NEVER exited, and more to the point, it will never exist, except in your mind.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

^^ Completely off topic.

You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.

The argument that we'll all be nice to each other if we just got rid of guns is ludicrous.

 

[Pogo]

With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.

There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...

Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.

Drama queen much? War zone? Seriously? Should I even /bother/ responding to your bullshit anymore if you are going to be so disingenuous and full of shit?

If someone intends to do me harm, then I /should/ be able to defend myself. As I am not a /strong/ person, I would be /fucked/ so I guess I should just sit there and take it then? At least with a gun I have a chance and if I kill that fucker in the attempt to harm me, that's a "war-zone" in your opinion? I am so glad I live in /my/ world with a second amendment, not your fantasy land where I'm basically sacrificed so all the anti-gun people can have the "illusion" of being safe...

Absolutely that's a war zone. Who the HELL wants a society where you can't walk around without packing heat? That's what I call a war zone, no question about it.

​

Sorry to state the obvious yet again... doesn't have jack squat to do with the Second Amendment or any legislation at all. Once again, he said to the wall, you can't legislate culture.

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey.

See - I think that premise sums up your problem right there. And I will not accept it. Ever. Humans are a social animal --- we ain't plankton.

If that's the sort of planet you wanna create and live on, you're welcome to it.

So you think that someone who desires to kill a bunch of people is /not/ an animal? I disagree...

That isn't even remotely close to what I posted. Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?
Westwall and I have a difference of opinion there on the nature of (hu)man. I say we're capable of continuing to evolve past the jungle to reasonable social structures. He says we're baboons and will always be baboons, world without end, amen. He throws up his hands and gives up; I say we can do better. Neither of us is referring specifically to killers, armed or otherwise. We speak of our own species as a whole.

 

[Pogo]

No I don't think "more efficiently" is arguable. If that were the case the invention of firearm technology would have been a failure.

("failure" meaning in the sense of popular/widely used of course, not the ethical sense)

Nor can I agree that propensity to murder leads gun violence; rather the technology --- and its very efficiency -- leads to that violence.

Again, random gun nuts going off like this are not out for "murder" per se. Murder is when you catch your spouse in the act. It's specific and personally targeted. The goal here is carnage, visual, aural sensory input of blood and screams and targets running for their lives in fear. Only a gun delivers that. In a way it's more akin to rape than murder, because at the psychological base it's about power (i.e. lack thereof). Firearms deliver instant, if perverse, access to ultimate power.

Murders, intentional targeted ones, can be and certainly are committed by firearms, as are suicides. Part of the same efficiency factor. Without firearms, they would still happen, though to a lesser extent due to the same efficiency factor.

But this sort of random picking off innocent strangers would not.

Oh I think you might be mistaken on that, a particularly nasty knife crime gets all of the above in a far more "sensational" way... They use guns because their afraid to get close to their victim's, they use guns to maintain an advantage in the fight; distance. You could argue that taking guns away means they have to get closer and risk getting disarmed, but that relies on the victim being strong enough to repel their attack. If you ban guns then you have these fucks finding another weapon to hunt with, and facing, a population who isn't /allowed/ to be armed, someone who's got a bat or a tire iron.

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.

There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...

Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey. Man though, is the only "prey" creature that can fight back with better then poor odds in their favor. When a mountain lion attacks a deer the deer usually loses. Occasionally the deer gets the pyhrric victory of doing enough damage to also kill the mountain lion, but that is rare. Far more rare is the deer that kills the mountain lion and gets to walk away.

Mankind though has developed weapons that make everyone equal. No more can the 225 pound, MMA practicing, steroid addled man, assault, and rape or kill, the 95 pound, comparatively feeble woman, with impunity. She can fight back. The reality is that your world doesn't exist. It has NEVER exited, and more to the point, it will never exist, except in your mind.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

^^ Completely off topic.

You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.

The argument that we'll all be nice to each other if we just got rid of guns is ludicrous.

It would be, if anyone had made it.

 

[2aguy]

No I don't think "more efficiently" is arguable. If that were the case the invention of firearm technology would have been a failure.

("failure" meaning in the sense of popular/widely used of course, not the ethical sense)

Nor can I agree that propensity to murder leads gun violence; rather the technology --- and its very efficiency -- leads to that violence.

Again, random gun nuts going off like this are not out for "murder" per se. Murder is when you catch your spouse in the act. It's specific and personally targeted. The goal here is carnage, visual, aural sensory input of blood and screams and targets running for their lives in fear. Only a gun delivers that. In a way it's more akin to rape than murder, because at the psychological base it's about power (i.e. lack thereof). Firearms deliver instant, if perverse, access to ultimate power.

Murders, intentional targeted ones, can be and certainly are committed by firearms, as are suicides. Part of the same efficiency factor. Without firearms, they would still happen, though to a lesser extent due to the same efficiency factor.

But this sort of random picking off innocent strangers would not.

Oh I think you might be mistaken on that, a particularly nasty knife crime gets all of the above in a far more "sensational" way... They use guns because their afraid to get close to their victim's, they use guns to maintain an advantage in the fight; distance. You could argue that taking guns away means they have to get closer and risk getting disarmed, but that relies on the victim being strong enough to repel their attack. If you ban guns then you have these fucks finding another weapon to hunt with, and facing, a population who isn't /allowed/ to be armed, someone who's got a bat or a tire iron.

Again, neither in this post, nor in this thread, nor anywhere on this site or the entire internet have I advocated "banning guns". And I'd appreciate it if you don't strip out the context of my post (I replaced it above). No, I think the fact that a gun acts as a Horror Remote Control Device is exactly the impetus. That's exactly why it's glorified and romanticized in way too many movies, TV shows, comic books, video games and novels than any of us could ever count. That's why it becomes news fodder -- we all want the gory details to participate vicariously. When you're in a hidden position with a rifle, or just walked into a scene where nobody would expect a war zone, you have a power advantage. And if you inspect any case of a mass/multiple gun shooting, the base dynamic driving them is always just that -- Power. It's a psychological question and has very much to do with (perceptions of) masculinity. That is where the focus should be.

With guns available to everyone, these attackers face the very real possibility that anyone could be carrying, and if the victim pulls a gun the attacker has lost their advantage, and better yet they know it. Fear is a good motivator for not attacking people for sport or money, especially good against the dipshits who just want to look "cool" or "dangerous" waving a gun around. Really the worst that happens is what? The attacker shoots their victim? Who's to say the attacker wouldn't have shot them or their next victim anyway? The victim shoots the attacker? Our streets are safer by removing them anyway. Or the attacker runs, maybe gets shot in the back, either way all the other predator's out there are going to have to think a bit more about their action.

There's a reason most wild animals don't typically attack healthy adult pray, they go after the old, sick, and young because its easier, because it's safer - taking away a moose's antlers and hooves would only enable the wolves to kill any of them at will...

Sorry but I find this approach absolutely mindless. It's basically attacking a fire by tossing gasoline on it. More broadly it's requiring all of us to live in a war zone. What, we're all supposed to hang around and risk getting picked off because our culture can't find the cojones to stand up and decide killing is a value we don't need, until we get our gummint-issed Glock so we can participate in the war too? That's not a planet I'm gonna live on, ever. That's senseless.

No, it's not. It is realizing that man is an animal, and like animals the world over there are predators and prey. Man though, is the only "prey" creature that can fight back with better then poor odds in their favor. When a mountain lion attacks a deer the deer usually loses. Occasionally the deer gets the pyhrric victory of doing enough damage to also kill the mountain lion, but that is rare. Far more rare is the deer that kills the mountain lion and gets to walk away.

Mankind though has developed weapons that make everyone equal. No more can the 225 pound, MMA practicing, steroid addled man, assault, and rape or kill, the 95 pound, comparatively feeble woman, with impunity. She can fight back. The reality is that your world doesn't exist. It has NEVER exited, and more to the point, it will never exist, except in your mind.

It's not the sort of world I desire to live in, but it IS the reality. No matter how much you wish to think that man is somehow "better" than any other animal, the facts are it simply isn't true. In all the history of mankind, how many have actually achieved enlightenment? How many? You can count them on your fingers and toes. It's a fact that the majority of people don't care about enlightenment. They never will and that dooms the idealistic viewpoint that you entertain.

People are social animals. So are dogs, ants, and bee's. Guess what...they kill each other all the time.

You've just basically expanded on the same premise of paranoia. The idea that there are monsters under the bed. We have to get past of that mentality, collectively. Grow up, as it were. Otherwise it dooms us to be the very animals you describe. A self-fulfilling prophecy. It says we're incapable of evolving beyond, say, cannibalism. I'm not buying it.

There's throwing up one's hands and giving up as a path of least resistance, and then there's getting one's hands dirty to effect change. You'll find me in the latter camp. You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Ghandi serves humanity; Rambo does not.

It's not paranoia dude. It is the reality of the human condition. Yours is the premise of delusional thinking. I don't give a rats ass what YOU think, what matters is what the rest of the world thinks....and more importantly does. One day, when you get a little older you'll understand that. Or, you may not, and choose to remain delusional. But, the world, and the inhabitants thereof, will continue to ignore you.

Throw a tantrum all you like but I very much doubt you polled "the rest of the world", and if you had, that you'd come up with that answer. The delusion of monsters under the bed is simply an irrational juvenile fantasy that needs to be left behind with the tooth fairy and the other trappings of childhood. GI Joe fantasies simply don't reflect any mode of reality. They reflect the emotional-level fantasies of children -- who don't know any better. Adults are supposed to have grown beyond that.

Tantrum? Hyperbole much? Tell the class ANY period in time when man has treated man with respect, courtesy, honor, and compassion on a large scale. Go ahead. Show us. Your very post here claiming I am having a tantrum is a classic example of man treating man in a disrespectful way. Without respect there can be no other way of treating with your fellow man than with violence and hatred.

Thank you for making my point oh so eloquently.

^^ Completely off topic.

You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.

The argument that we'll all be nice to each other if we just got rid of guns is ludicrous.

Yes...just ask the senior citizen who had his eye sockets broken, his nose broken, his ribs broken and had bleeding on the brain because he was attacked by an unarmed, teen mob.....no guns used...and just asked them to stop fighting on his car......

 

[2aguy]

Murderers in our society are not normal people.....

Public Health Pot Shots - Reason.com

These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journal Educational Horizons that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available.

Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence. Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.


Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

 

[Pogo]

^^ Completely off topic.

You wish. In point of fact it is completely ON TOPIC, that's why you try and censor it.

It's not at all on topic. The story here: man shoots, kills innocent victims. The story there: man stabs innocent victims, and more to the point of being completely off topic -- IN CHINA.

This just in: when a lunatic pops out of the bushes in Wisconsin and starts spraying bullets .... it's got zero to do with Chinese culture. Multimillion dollar study just figured this out.

 

[EverCurious]

Absolutely that's a war zone. Who the HELL wants a society where you can't walk around without packing heat? That's what I call a war zone, no question about it.

​

Sorry to state the obvious yet again... doesn't have jack squat to do with the Second Amendment or any legislation at all. Once again, he said to the wall, you can't legislate culture.

Funny, my state is an open carry, free gun state, and has been pretty much since it became a state. I've yet to see ANYTHING even remotely like the bullshit cartoon happen...