Manhunt On for Road Rage Shooter

[Pogo]

Okay. Homework completed. Now what?

That is what is happening with the so called "gun culture" claims.

Ringel, I swear if your avi weren't my favorite pirate and you didn't know about cool stuff like 18th century bone buttons, that would piss me off.
No one is trying to fool you. I already said I was going to leave the "gun culture" thing to the professors, and I am.
If you had an actual point, I guess you'd need to explain it a bit better.

The point is I can recognize targeted social engineering when I see it. That's all.

Ah, 'targeted social engineering' ---- we're talking about TV now? That's fair.

I tried to look at your link above but it tried to sell me some kinda software. Never got the article.

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

 

[Ringel05]

I never expected you to take a tragedy and make it political.

The conversation needs to be had. People would like to prevent these tragedies.

i tried having it and pogo got upset n just kept being an ass. i gave up.

Pogo believes we need to change the culture, the common definition of being "a man" in this society, to one that does not include violence and killing as our "go to" solution to problems. Now I agree that how we do that is fuzzy. Teach our kids that, yes. If we are teachers, ministers or otherwise have a lot of contact with kids, talk to our children about it. What do we do with the media and Hollywood in this country that glorifies violence? Video games? Violence in music? How do we slow any of this down, change this culture just by having this great idea? Pogo isn't wrong, but I need a lot more help seeing how that idea will look in action.

Changing the culture has always been the key to controlling the population in certain areas. The so called gun culture is a myth perpetrated to press an agenda.

When a man in a parking lot decides the music in the car next to him is too loud for his tastes and the way to deal with it is to shoot into the car and kill a kid, and when a second man decides he's got personal issues with his GF and the way to deal with that is to shoot the GF and the infant child, and then drive to his coaches and blow his own brains out in front of them, and then a third man decides his personal power issues require him to shoot his own mother in her bed and then barge into the local school and shoot 20 innocent children and a couple of their teachers, and then a fourth man decides that whatever his personal power issues are require him to call the local fire department and when they show up start picking them off as a sniper, and ALL of these happen within the space of less than one month, yeah we definitely have a gun culture and a masculinity-definition issue.

The only "agenda" associated with Gun Culture, not counting the self-perpetuation interests of the NRA and arms dealers, is simple profit for makers of TV shows and movies and video games and comics and toy manufacturers (etc etc etc) who know damn well they can get the attention they crave, and therefore the ratings, the ticket buyers, the counter sales, etc etc etc though endless discharges of guns and blood and guts, because the unwashed will lap it up. And we must needs throw the commercial news media in there too on its choices of what defines "news" for exactly the same reasons.

All of this, while it lines the pockets of the purveyors, also presents the grand illusion that shooting and blood and guts (etc etc etc) is the normal way of the world, and removes us spiritually from the sanctity of the Life force (and no you're not going to get a quantification on spirituality -- that's not possible) and injects the idea that "being a man" means to shoot, and kill, and blood and guts are trophies to be boasted about rather than abhorrences to be ashamed of.

You choose to see it as some nebulous 'gun culture' when in fact it is a variety of individual factors that run from simple individual control fixations, psychosis, sociopathology to the dynamics of simple human rage. Granted some perpetrators would do less damage without access to firearms but many would find other ways to do as much damage as they can.

 

[Ringel05]

That is what is happening with the so called "gun culture" claims.

Ringel, I swear if your avi weren't my favorite pirate and you didn't know about cool stuff like 18th century bone buttons, that would piss me off.
No one is trying to fool you. I already said I was going to leave the "gun culture" thing to the professors, and I am.
If you had an actual point, I guess you'd need to explain it a bit better.

The point is I can recognize targeted social engineering when I see it. That's all.

Ah, 'targeted social engineering' ---- we're talking about TV now? That's fair.

I tried to look at your link above but it tried to sell me some kinda software. Never got the article.

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

Simple gun control as opposed to the more difficult problem of addressing the real issues which are encapsulated in human psychological dynamics.

 

[Ringel05]

Thought so....they don't even say if the shootings are by legal gun owners, or people who can legally carry guns......just as I thought.....and the road rage incident they use as an example....the police didn't even take the guy into immediate custody and later only arrested him after they realized he shot a proffessional athlete....and considering that they were both yelling at each other, the actual aggressor in the attack hasn't been identified......

But thanks for linking to an article that doesn't include that information......

It doesn't fucking matter whether they're carrying "legally" or not. It's all about the motivation. If a killer has teh motivation he's going to act on it, law or no law.

You gotta get over this infantile paralysis that laws are the answer to everything. They AIN'T.

if we take it as fact a killer has the motivations, are you saying no gun he puts those motivations away?

seemscto me hed use something else.

i went back n read. you never provide solutions, just bitch at people a,lot n get in needless fights.

have fun cause it only seems that is your real goal.

Finally -- a real question.

A "killer" would have the same motivation, if he was out to "kill", sure. But that's not what we're talking about here -- this is about the idea of specifically shooting. There's a distinct difference. As you must know not every shooting is a killing. Just as saying "we have a gun problem" is in no way the same as saying "we have a murder problem".

I'll go more into this a bit later, got something to do.

ive asked a lot of real questions. you didnt like em n blamed me for not paying attention.

take all the guns away would a killer still want to kill?

Yes. A killer, if that's his motivation, still has that motivation. If he hasn't got a gun he finds another way.

I'm getting back to finally finishing this thought after a week away -- had to leave town (and drive through 12 states) to deal with a death and burial.

We're distinguishing here between "murder" and "random violence" (as in either a mass shooter or the present case of a spontaneous killing). Murder is targeted and personal. A philandering spouse, a collapsed business deal, a revenge for something, a witness who knows too much. Murder has a specific target with a specific name for a specific purpose.

Mass or random killing as in the current event has no such specificity. Despar didn't murder Roberson because of who she was or something she did in the past. She just happened to be "in his way". Could have been anybody.

Here's Emilie Parker:

​

She died in the Sandy Hook shooting. She was six years old. One of twenty kids and four adults Adam Lanza shot to death. I only single her out so that she becomes a human with a history and not just a number.

Adam Lanza didn't shoot "Emilie Parker" or anyone else with a name and a history and a photo. He shot at whoever was available in his gunsights. Any body, literally any body, would suffice, and did. He had no quarrel with Emilie Parker or anyone else. He was committing gun violence for its own return, and the return would have been identical regardless who the targets were. In other words they were not humans to him; they were just tools.

I've made this point many times before ---- mass random shooters aren't committing murder for the sake of murder, as in specifically eliminating some specific person. Murder per se is not their objective; it is just a side effect. Their actual objective is a self-centred sensory feedback. The sensory feedback that addresses a shaken and sick ego wrapped up in its own self-pity so tightly that they have convinced themselves they're hopelessly powerless, that this powerlessness is overwhelming, and that the way they can ultimately address it is to spray bullets on random targets who either fall helplessly bleeding to death or run in terror. In that moment they achieve the Power that so eludes them.

And that's exactly why the firearm is the weapon of choice. As long as you have a secure position with visual access to targets, that moment is ultimately powerful. He is in that moment inferior to no one and no thing including the law. He is the king of the world, however briefly, as long as he can keep the bullets going out. And that's why they're almost always male, and often in an obviously power-challenged situation such as the common case of a disgruntled worker.

A murderer is out to eliminate somebody specific. That goal is equally achieved whether through a gun, a poisoned meal, strangulation, a blunt insturment or even a hired hit man where the killer doesn't have to watch. None of them are done for sensory feedback; they're done to eliminate somebody personally.

A mass shooter OTOH is anything but personal. Adam Lanza would not have even gone to the school without a gun. There would have been no point in stabbing or poisoning or strangling 20 kids and four adults. James Holmes wouldn't have gone into the movie theater without a gun. Jared Loughner doesn't go to Gabby Giffords' rally without a gun. Etc etc etc. The gun, and what it does for the shooter, is the whole point --- not the murders. They're just a byproduct. Who the victim is matters not a whit, as long as they bleed, and panic, and scream. Because the shooter isn't there to eliminate anyone specific --- he's simply using whoever is available for his self-centered sensory feedback of blood and guts and screaming.

The same sensory feedback --- exactly the same sensory feedback --- that he's been teased by in every movie house and every evening of television and every video game and even the superhero comic books and toys he spent his time with as a child. All of them absolutely unified in sending the messages "shooting is cool" and "in the face of adversity, the thing to do is shoot something, because then you have Power".

That definition -- that message --- is the root of the gun problem right there. And notice that every pronoun is male. That's deliberate.

And so trivially does it desensitize the masses, that it's actually thinkable for a motorist whose greatest issue in the moment is how to merge into a single lane, to decide he can manage this problem by shooting at it. Because then you have Power.

To look at it another way, mass/random shooting has the same amount to do with murder as rape has to do with sex. In a sense it's the same dynamic derived from the same inadequacy.

That's individual reactions to stimuli so basically you've discredited your "gun culture' claim by citing what I've been saying all along. In reality you've just acknowledged that the gun is no more than a tool and not a motivating factor.

 

[Pogo]

Ringel, I swear if your avi weren't my favorite pirate and you didn't know about cool stuff like 18th century bone buttons, that would piss me off.
No one is trying to fool you. I already said I was going to leave the "gun culture" thing to the professors, and I am.
If you had an actual point, I guess you'd need to explain it a bit better.

The point is I can recognize targeted social engineering when I see it. That's all.

Ah, 'targeted social engineering' ---- we're talking about TV now? That's fair.

I tried to look at your link above but it tried to sell me some kinda software. Never got the article.

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

Simple gun control as opposed to the more difficult problem of addressing the real issues which are encapsulated in human psychological dynamics.

Whelp -- that theory fall down go boom then, because I've always advocated the latter rather than the former, so that's not my agenda at all.

So did Bob Costas.

 

[Pogo]

The conversation needs to be had. People would like to prevent these tragedies.

i tried having it and pogo got upset n just kept being an ass. i gave up.

Pogo believes we need to change the culture, the common definition of being "a man" in this society, to one that does not include violence and killing as our "go to" solution to problems. Now I agree that how we do that is fuzzy. Teach our kids that, yes. If we are teachers, ministers or otherwise have a lot of contact with kids, talk to our children about it. What do we do with the media and Hollywood in this country that glorifies violence? Video games? Violence in music? How do we slow any of this down, change this culture just by having this great idea? Pogo isn't wrong, but I need a lot more help seeing how that idea will look in action.

Changing the culture has always been the key to controlling the population in certain areas. The so called gun culture is a myth perpetrated to press an agenda.

When a man in a parking lot decides the music in the car next to him is too loud for his tastes and the way to deal with it is to shoot into the car and kill a kid, and when a second man decides he's got personal issues with his GF and the way to deal with that is to shoot the GF and the infant child, and then drive to his coaches and blow his own brains out in front of them, and then a third man decides his personal power issues require him to shoot his own mother in her bed and then barge into the local school and shoot 20 innocent children and a couple of their teachers, and then a fourth man decides that whatever his personal power issues are require him to call the local fire department and when they show up start picking them off as a sniper, and ALL of these happen within the space of less than one month, yeah we definitely have a gun culture and a masculinity-definition issue.

The only "agenda" associated with Gun Culture, not counting the self-perpetuation interests of the NRA and arms dealers, is simple profit for makers of TV shows and movies and video games and comics and toy manufacturers (etc etc etc) who know damn well they can get the attention they crave, and therefore the ratings, the ticket buyers, the counter sales, etc etc etc though endless discharges of guns and blood and guts, because the unwashed will lap it up. And we must needs throw the commercial news media in there too on its choices of what defines "news" for exactly the same reasons.

All of this, while it lines the pockets of the purveyors, also presents the grand illusion that shooting and blood and guts (etc etc etc) is the normal way of the world, and removes us spiritually from the sanctity of the Life force (and no you're not going to get a quantification on spirituality -- that's not possible) and injects the idea that "being a man" means to shoot, and kill, and blood and guts are trophies to be boasted about rather than abhorrences to be ashamed of.

You choose to see it as some nebulous 'gun culture' when in fact it is a variety of individual factors that run from simple individual control fixations, psychosis, sociopathology to the dynamics of simple human rage. Granted some perpetrators would do less damage without access to firearms but many would find other ways to do as much damage as they can.

I doubt it. A few would but mass bulletsprayers are going for a sensory feedback that is very specific, that just isn't served by poisoning the city water supply.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't fucking matter whether they're carrying "legally" or not. It's all about the motivation. If a killer has teh motivation he's going to act on it, law or no law.

You gotta get over this infantile paralysis that laws are the answer to everything. They AIN'T.

if we take it as fact a killer has the motivations, are you saying no gun he puts those motivations away?

seemscto me hed use something else.

i went back n read. you never provide solutions, just bitch at people a,lot n get in needless fights.

have fun cause it only seems that is your real goal.

Finally -- a real question.

A "killer" would have the same motivation, if he was out to "kill", sure. But that's not what we're talking about here -- this is about the idea of specifically shooting. There's a distinct difference. As you must know not every shooting is a killing. Just as saying "we have a gun problem" is in no way the same as saying "we have a murder problem".

I'll go more into this a bit later, got something to do.

ive asked a lot of real questions. you didnt like em n blamed me for not paying attention.

take all the guns away would a killer still want to kill?

Yes. A killer, if that's his motivation, still has that motivation. If he hasn't got a gun he finds another way.

I'm getting back to finally finishing this thought after a week away -- had to leave town (and drive through 12 states) to deal with a death and burial.

We're distinguishing here between "murder" and "random violence" (as in either a mass shooter or the present case of a spontaneous killing). Murder is targeted and personal. A philandering spouse, a collapsed business deal, a revenge for something, a witness who knows too much. Murder has a specific target with a specific name for a specific purpose.

Mass or random killing as in the current event has no such specificity. Despar didn't murder Roberson because of who she was or something she did in the past. She just happened to be "in his way". Could have been anybody.

Here's Emilie Parker:

​

She died in the Sandy Hook shooting. She was six years old. One of twenty kids and four adults Adam Lanza shot to death. I only single her out so that she becomes a human with a history and not just a number.

Adam Lanza didn't shoot "Emilie Parker" or anyone else with a name and a history and a photo. He shot at whoever was available in his gunsights. Any body, literally any body, would suffice, and did. He had no quarrel with Emilie Parker or anyone else. He was committing gun violence for its own return, and the return would have been identical regardless who the targets were. In other words they were not humans to him; they were just tools.

I've made this point many times before ---- mass random shooters aren't committing murder for the sake of murder, as in specifically eliminating some specific person. Murder per se is not their objective; it is just a side effect. Their actual objective is a self-centred sensory feedback. The sensory feedback that addresses a shaken and sick ego wrapped up in its own self-pity so tightly that they have convinced themselves they're hopelessly powerless, that this powerlessness is overwhelming, and that the way they can ultimately address it is to spray bullets on random targets who either fall helplessly bleeding to death or run in terror. In that moment they achieve the Power that so eludes them.

And that's exactly why the firearm is the weapon of choice. As long as you have a secure position with visual access to targets, that moment is ultimately powerful. He is in that moment inferior to no one and no thing including the law. He is the king of the world, however briefly, as long as he can keep the bullets going out. And that's why they're almost always male, and often in an obviously power-challenged situation such as the common case of a disgruntled worker.

A murderer is out to eliminate somebody specific. That goal is equally achieved whether through a gun, a poisoned meal, strangulation, a blunt insturment or even a hired hit man where the killer doesn't have to watch. None of them are done for sensory feedback; they're done to eliminate somebody personally.

A mass shooter OTOH is anything but personal. Adam Lanza would not have even gone to the school without a gun. There would have been no point in stabbing or poisoning or strangling 20 kids and four adults. James Holmes wouldn't have gone into the movie theater without a gun. Jared Loughner doesn't go to Gabby Giffords' rally without a gun. Etc etc etc. The gun, and what it does for the shooter, is the whole point --- not the murders. They're just a byproduct. Who the victim is matters not a whit, as long as they bleed, and panic, and scream. Because the shooter isn't there to eliminate anyone specific --- he's simply using whoever is available for his self-centered sensory feedback of blood and guts and screaming.

The same sensory feedback --- exactly the same sensory feedback --- that he's been teased by in every movie house and every evening of television and every video game and even the superhero comic books and toys he spent his time with as a child. All of them absolutely unified in sending the messages "shooting is cool" and "in the face of adversity, the thing to do is shoot something, because then you have Power".

That definition -- that message --- is the root of the gun problem right there. And notice that every pronoun is male. That's deliberate.

And so trivially does it desensitize the masses, that it's actually thinkable for a motorist whose greatest issue in the moment is how to merge into a single lane, to decide he can manage this problem by shooting at it. Because then you have Power.

To look at it another way, mass/random shooting has the same amount to do with murder as rape has to do with sex. In a sense it's the same dynamic derived from the same inadequacy.

That's individual reactions to stimuli so basically you've discredited your "gun culture' claim by citing what I've been saying all along. In reality you've just acknowledged that the gun is no more than a tool and not a motivating factor.

I have noted all along --- literally all along since I joined this site --- that the root of the problem is in the human motivation and that what they're using IS a tool. I don't see how anything has been "discredited" at all.

 

[Ringel05]

is

if we take it as fact a killer has the motivations, are you saying no gun he puts those motivations away?

seemscto me hed use something else.

i went back n read. you never provide solutions, just bitch at people a,lot n get in needless fights.

have fun cause it only seems that is your real goal.

Finally -- a real question.

A "killer" would have the same motivation, if he was out to "kill", sure. But that's not what we're talking about here -- this is about the idea of specifically shooting. There's a distinct difference. As you must know not every shooting is a killing. Just as saying "we have a gun problem" is in no way the same as saying "we have a murder problem".

I'll go more into this a bit later, got something to do.

ive asked a lot of real questions. you didnt like em n blamed me for not paying attention.

take all the guns away would a killer still want to kill?

Yes. A killer, if that's his motivation, still has that motivation. If he hasn't got a gun he finds another way.

I'm getting back to finally finishing this thought after a week away -- had to leave town (and drive through 12 states) to deal with a death and burial.

We're distinguishing here between "murder" and "random violence" (as in either a mass shooter or the present case of a spontaneous killing). Murder is targeted and personal. A philandering spouse, a collapsed business deal, a revenge for something, a witness who knows too much. Murder has a specific target with a specific name for a specific purpose.

Mass or random killing as in the current event has no such specificity. Despar didn't murder Roberson because of who she was or something she did in the past. She just happened to be "in his way". Could have been anybody.

Here's Emilie Parker:

​

She died in the Sandy Hook shooting. She was six years old. One of twenty kids and four adults Adam Lanza shot to death. I only single her out so that she becomes a human with a history and not just a number.

Adam Lanza didn't shoot "Emilie Parker" or anyone else with a name and a history and a photo. He shot at whoever was available in his gunsights. Any body, literally any body, would suffice, and did. He had no quarrel with Emilie Parker or anyone else. He was committing gun violence for its own return, and the return would have been identical regardless who the targets were. In other words they were not humans to him; they were just tools.

I've made this point many times before ---- mass random shooters aren't committing murder for the sake of murder, as in specifically eliminating some specific person. Murder per se is not their objective; it is just a side effect. Their actual objective is a self-centred sensory feedback. The sensory feedback that addresses a shaken and sick ego wrapped up in its own self-pity so tightly that they have convinced themselves they're hopelessly powerless, that this powerlessness is overwhelming, and that the way they can ultimately address it is to spray bullets on random targets who either fall helplessly bleeding to death or run in terror. In that moment they achieve the Power that so eludes them.

And that's exactly why the firearm is the weapon of choice. As long as you have a secure position with visual access to targets, that moment is ultimately powerful. He is in that moment inferior to no one and no thing including the law. He is the king of the world, however briefly, as long as he can keep the bullets going out. And that's why they're almost always male, and often in an obviously power-challenged situation such as the common case of a disgruntled worker.

A murderer is out to eliminate somebody specific. That goal is equally achieved whether through a gun, a poisoned meal, strangulation, a blunt insturment or even a hired hit man where the killer doesn't have to watch. None of them are done for sensory feedback; they're done to eliminate somebody personally.

A mass shooter OTOH is anything but personal. Adam Lanza would not have even gone to the school without a gun. There would have been no point in stabbing or poisoning or strangling 20 kids and four adults. James Holmes wouldn't have gone into the movie theater without a gun. Jared Loughner doesn't go to Gabby Giffords' rally without a gun. Etc etc etc. The gun, and what it does for the shooter, is the whole point --- not the murders. They're just a byproduct. Who the victim is matters not a whit, as long as they bleed, and panic, and scream. Because the shooter isn't there to eliminate anyone specific --- he's simply using whoever is available for his self-centered sensory feedback of blood and guts and screaming.

The same sensory feedback --- exactly the same sensory feedback --- that he's been teased by in every movie house and every evening of television and every video game and even the superhero comic books and toys he spent his time with as a child. All of them absolutely unified in sending the messages "shooting is cool" and "in the face of adversity, the thing to do is shoot something, because then you have Power".

That definition -- that message --- is the root of the gun problem right there. And notice that every pronoun is male. That's deliberate.

And so trivially does it desensitize the masses, that it's actually thinkable for a motorist whose greatest issue in the moment is how to merge into a single lane, to decide he can manage this problem by shooting at it. Because then you have Power.

To look at it another way, mass/random shooting has the same amount to do with murder as rape has to do with sex. In a sense it's the same dynamic derived from the same inadequacy.

That's individual reactions to stimuli so basically you've discredited your "gun culture' claim by citing what I've been saying all along. In reality you've just acknowledged that the gun is no more than a tool and not a motivating factor.

I have noted all along --- literally all along since I joined this site --- that the root of the problem is in the human motivation and that what they're using IS a tool. I don't see how anything has been "discredited" at all.

Then you and I must interpret/define 'gun culture' differently.

 

[Ringel05]

i tried having it and pogo got upset n just kept being an ass. i gave up.

Pogo believes we need to change the culture, the common definition of being "a man" in this society, to one that does not include violence and killing as our "go to" solution to problems. Now I agree that how we do that is fuzzy. Teach our kids that, yes. If we are teachers, ministers or otherwise have a lot of contact with kids, talk to our children about it. What do we do with the media and Hollywood in this country that glorifies violence? Video games? Violence in music? How do we slow any of this down, change this culture just by having this great idea? Pogo isn't wrong, but I need a lot more help seeing how that idea will look in action.

Changing the culture has always been the key to controlling the population in certain areas. The so called gun culture is a myth perpetrated to press an agenda.

When a man in a parking lot decides the music in the car next to him is too loud for his tastes and the way to deal with it is to shoot into the car and kill a kid, and when a second man decides he's got personal issues with his GF and the way to deal with that is to shoot the GF and the infant child, and then drive to his coaches and blow his own brains out in front of them, and then a third man decides his personal power issues require him to shoot his own mother in her bed and then barge into the local school and shoot 20 innocent children and a couple of their teachers, and then a fourth man decides that whatever his personal power issues are require him to call the local fire department and when they show up start picking them off as a sniper, and ALL of these happen within the space of less than one month, yeah we definitely have a gun culture and a masculinity-definition issue.

The only "agenda" associated with Gun Culture, not counting the self-perpetuation interests of the NRA and arms dealers, is simple profit for makers of TV shows and movies and video games and comics and toy manufacturers (etc etc etc) who know damn well they can get the attention they crave, and therefore the ratings, the ticket buyers, the counter sales, etc etc etc though endless discharges of guns and blood and guts, because the unwashed will lap it up. And we must needs throw the commercial news media in there too on its choices of what defines "news" for exactly the same reasons.

All of this, while it lines the pockets of the purveyors, also presents the grand illusion that shooting and blood and guts (etc etc etc) is the normal way of the world, and removes us spiritually from the sanctity of the Life force (and no you're not going to get a quantification on spirituality -- that's not possible) and injects the idea that "being a man" means to shoot, and kill, and blood and guts are trophies to be boasted about rather than abhorrences to be ashamed of.

You choose to see it as some nebulous 'gun culture' when in fact it is a variety of individual factors that run from simple individual control fixations, psychosis, sociopathology to the dynamics of simple human rage. Granted some perpetrators would do less damage without access to firearms but many would find other ways to do as much damage as they can.

I doubt it. A few would but mass bulletsprayers are going for a sensory feedback that is very specific, that just isn't served by poisoning the city water supply.

The sensory feedback is again psychological stimuli as a result of the use of a specific tool, a stimuli that can also be served by using any other immediate personal usage of potential killing tools. It's not the tool, it's the stimuli from the use of the tool.

 

[MaryL]

>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.


When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.

“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”

More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.

Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.

.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or [email protected].

“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com​

He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.

But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".



theHawk

June seventh I was involved in a traffic incident. A bored trucker playing games, like a mad max or that movie "Duel" by Steven Spielberg. Going slow, I go to pass he speeds Up. For miles this went on. I got past the jerk, he tail gates me, I used the nearest ramp and got the hell out of there. It still scares me. Road rage dosen't explain that. But IF I could have shot the asshole that did that, I would have, people in 30,000 lb. vehicles intimidate little old people, and frighten and anger them this much, what the hell is wrong with people now? Vehicles are also weapons, they kill more people than guns.

 

[Ringel05]

The point is I can recognize targeted social engineering when I see it. That's all.

Ah, 'targeted social engineering' ---- we're talking about TV now? That's fair.

I tried to look at your link above but it tried to sell me some kinda software. Never got the article.

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

Simple gun control as opposed to the more difficult problem of addressing the real issues which are encapsulated in human psychological dynamics.

Whelp -- that theory fall down go boom then, because I've always advocated the latter rather than the former, so that's not my agenda at all.

So did Bob Costas.

I knew the name Bob Costas but since I'm not a sports fan I had to look him up. What does he have to do with all of this?

 

[Pogo]

Pogo believes we need to change the culture, the common definition of being "a man" in this society, to one that does not include violence and killing as our "go to" solution to problems. Now I agree that how we do that is fuzzy. Teach our kids that, yes. If we are teachers, ministers or otherwise have a lot of contact with kids, talk to our children about it. What do we do with the media and Hollywood in this country that glorifies violence? Video games? Violence in music? How do we slow any of this down, change this culture just by having this great idea? Pogo isn't wrong, but I need a lot more help seeing how that idea will look in action.

Changing the culture has always been the key to controlling the population in certain areas. The so called gun culture is a myth perpetrated to press an agenda.

When a man in a parking lot decides the music in the car next to him is too loud for his tastes and the way to deal with it is to shoot into the car and kill a kid, and when a second man decides he's got personal issues with his GF and the way to deal with that is to shoot the GF and the infant child, and then drive to his coaches and blow his own brains out in front of them, and then a third man decides his personal power issues require him to shoot his own mother in her bed and then barge into the local school and shoot 20 innocent children and a couple of their teachers, and then a fourth man decides that whatever his personal power issues are require him to call the local fire department and when they show up start picking them off as a sniper, and ALL of these happen within the space of less than one month, yeah we definitely have a gun culture and a masculinity-definition issue.

The only "agenda" associated with Gun Culture, not counting the self-perpetuation interests of the NRA and arms dealers, is simple profit for makers of TV shows and movies and video games and comics and toy manufacturers (etc etc etc) who know damn well they can get the attention they crave, and therefore the ratings, the ticket buyers, the counter sales, etc etc etc though endless discharges of guns and blood and guts, because the unwashed will lap it up. And we must needs throw the commercial news media in there too on its choices of what defines "news" for exactly the same reasons.

All of this, while it lines the pockets of the purveyors, also presents the grand illusion that shooting and blood and guts (etc etc etc) is the normal way of the world, and removes us spiritually from the sanctity of the Life force (and no you're not going to get a quantification on spirituality -- that's not possible) and injects the idea that "being a man" means to shoot, and kill, and blood and guts are trophies to be boasted about rather than abhorrences to be ashamed of.

You choose to see it as some nebulous 'gun culture' when in fact it is a variety of individual factors that run from simple individual control fixations, psychosis, sociopathology to the dynamics of simple human rage. Granted some perpetrators would do less damage without access to firearms but many would find other ways to do as much damage as they can.

I doubt it. A few would but mass bulletsprayers are going for a sensory feedback that is very specific, that just isn't served by poisoning the city water supply.

The sensory feedback is again psychological stimuli as a result of the use of a specific tool, a stimuli that can also be served by using any other immediate personal usage of potential killing tools. It's not the tool, it's the stimuli from the use of the tool.

Yes. Exactly. And that's why the gun is the weapon of choice for a mass shooter --- you don't get that kind of sensory feedback from anything else.

And to connect that dot --- the value of that sensory feedback -- the fact that it has that value at all as a bestower of Power --- is dictated and glorified by Gun Culture --- which is expressed in the aforementioned TV dial, movies, toys, etc etc etc.

That's what I mean by Gun Culture --- a social value. Looks like this, at first:

​

 

[MaryL]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, 'targeted social engineering' ---- we're talking about TV now? That's fair.

I tried to look at your link above but it tried to sell me some kinda software. Never got the article.

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

Simple gun control as opposed to the more difficult problem of addressing the real issues which are encapsulated in human psychological dynamics.

Whelp -- that theory fall down go boom then, because I've always advocated the latter rather than the former, so that's not my agenda at all.

So did Bob Costas.

I knew the name Bob Costas but since I'm not a sports fan I had to look him up. What does he have to do with all of this?

An allusion to the commentary posted way backthread, which I'll paste here for easy access. The commentary is not at all about sports, though it's also not about "gun control", which deliberate mischaracterization I find fascinating.

This is the same issue that was flaring the day I joined this site, being just after the Bob Costas Monday Night Football commentary on Jovan Belcher, and a few days before Adam Lanza punctuated the entire issue with twenty exclamation points in Connecticut.

Costas' commentary has been uploaded literally thousands of times on YouTube. Nearly every one of these uploads describes it as a "gun control rant".....

​

----- DESPITE the naked fact that Costas never once mentions "gun control", never once alludes to any laws, never once makes any mention of Second Amendment rights. The entire commentary is centered entirely on the illness of a society that thinks the solution to everybody's problem is "a gun". Football player Jovan Belcher had just shot his wife and infant, then drove to his football practice and blew his own brains out in front of his coaches. A week before that a driver in Jacksonville Florida had shot into a car parked next to him objecting to its loud music (and killed a kid). Then just after that, the commentary was pushed off the front pages by Lanza, and a week after that, William Spegler ambushing firefighters in Webster New York.

All different shootings, all different motivations, with one thing in common --- "I can deal with this problem by shooting at it" THAT is, and always was, the issue. That's what the Costas commentary addressed, and yet all these YouTubers and commenters here, and elsewhere, desperately tried to morph it into "gun control" apparently because they can't stand to face the social-values issue this actually IS.​

 

[Pogo]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

 

[Ringel05]

Changing the culture has always been the key to controlling the population in certain areas. The so called gun culture is a myth perpetrated to press an agenda.

When a man in a parking lot decides the music in the car next to him is too loud for his tastes and the way to deal with it is to shoot into the car and kill a kid, and when a second man decides he's got personal issues with his GF and the way to deal with that is to shoot the GF and the infant child, and then drive to his coaches and blow his own brains out in front of them, and then a third man decides his personal power issues require him to shoot his own mother in her bed and then barge into the local school and shoot 20 innocent children and a couple of their teachers, and then a fourth man decides that whatever his personal power issues are require him to call the local fire department and when they show up start picking them off as a sniper, and ALL of these happen within the space of less than one month, yeah we definitely have a gun culture and a masculinity-definition issue.

The only "agenda" associated with Gun Culture, not counting the self-perpetuation interests of the NRA and arms dealers, is simple profit for makers of TV shows and movies and video games and comics and toy manufacturers (etc etc etc) who know damn well they can get the attention they crave, and therefore the ratings, the ticket buyers, the counter sales, etc etc etc though endless discharges of guns and blood and guts, because the unwashed will lap it up. And we must needs throw the commercial news media in there too on its choices of what defines "news" for exactly the same reasons.

All of this, while it lines the pockets of the purveyors, also presents the grand illusion that shooting and blood and guts (etc etc etc) is the normal way of the world, and removes us spiritually from the sanctity of the Life force (and no you're not going to get a quantification on spirituality -- that's not possible) and injects the idea that "being a man" means to shoot, and kill, and blood and guts are trophies to be boasted about rather than abhorrences to be ashamed of.

You choose to see it as some nebulous 'gun culture' when in fact it is a variety of individual factors that run from simple individual control fixations, psychosis, sociopathology to the dynamics of simple human rage. Granted some perpetrators would do less damage without access to firearms but many would find other ways to do as much damage as they can.

I doubt it. A few would but mass bulletsprayers are going for a sensory feedback that is very specific, that just isn't served by poisoning the city water supply.

The sensory feedback is again psychological stimuli as a result of the use of a specific tool, a stimuli that can also be served by using any other immediate personal usage of potential killing tools. It's not the tool, it's the stimuli from the use of the tool.

Yes. Exactly. And that's why the gun is the weapon of choice for a mass shooter --- you don't get that kind of sensory feedback from anything else.

And to connect that dot --- the value of that sensory feedback -- the fact that it has that value at all as a bestower of Power --- is dictated and glorified by Gun Culture --- which is expressed in the aforementioned TV dial, movies, toys, etc etc etc.

That's what I mean by Gun Culture --- a social value. Looks like this, at first:

​

And I say you're reading more into it than truly exists and I disagree with your social value assessment. Is there some influence? Of course, is it as you appear to be promoting? No, not even close.
James Holmes was motivated not by guns but by chaos in the persona of a movie character, guns and bombs were simply his tools of choice. In fact I seriously doubt you can scientifically show that any mass murderers were influenced by guns but were influence by other factors (typically of power) and chose guns as their tools. It's the psychological events that drive these individuals not exposure to any 'gun glorification'.

 

[Ringel05]

Just checked the link, not trying to sell me anything.
Granted there are small groups and individuals that can possibly be considered to have or be part of a gun culture, the targeted social engineering is when people or groups attempt to apply that definition with a broad brush in a negative light to promote a specific agenda.

An agenda like ------- what?

Simple gun control as opposed to the more difficult problem of addressing the real issues which are encapsulated in human psychological dynamics.

Whelp -- that theory fall down go boom then, because I've always advocated the latter rather than the former, so that's not my agenda at all.

So did Bob Costas.

I knew the name Bob Costas but since I'm not a sports fan I had to look him up. What does he have to do with all of this?

An allusion to the commentary posted way backthread, which I'll paste here for easy access. The commentary is not at all about sports, though it's also not about "gun control", which deliberate mischaracterization I find fascinating.

This is the same issue that was flaring the day I joined this site, being just after the Bob Costas Monday Night Football commentary on Jovan Belcher, and a few days before Adam Lanza punctuated the entire issue with twenty exclamation points in Connecticut.

Costas' commentary has been uploaded literally thousands of times on YouTube. Nearly every one of these uploads describes it as a "gun control rant".....

​

----- DESPITE the naked fact that Costas never once mentions "gun control", never once alludes to any laws, never once makes any mention of Second Amendment rights. The entire commentary is centered entirely on the illness of a society that thinks the solution to everybody's problem is "a gun". Football player Jovan Belcher had just shot his wife and infant, then drove to his football practice and blew his own brains out in front of his coaches. A week before that a driver in Jacksonville Florida had shot into a car parked next to him objecting to its loud music (and killed a kid). Then just after that, the commentary was pushed off the front pages by Lanza, and a week after that, William Spegler ambushing firefighters in Webster New York.

All different shootings, all different motivations, with one thing in common --- "I can deal with this problem by shooting at it" THAT is, and always was, the issue. That's what the Costas commentary addressed, and yet all these YouTubers and commenters here, and elsewhere, desperately tried to morph it into "gun control" apparently because they can't stand to face the social-values issue this actually IS.​

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.
As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns, it's a psychological/emotive driven reaction to stimuli.

 

[MaryL]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

 

[Pogo]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

 

[Pogo]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

As much as I love the zen of driving --- and I do love it, always did --- I feel tempted to give it up entirely every time I see a road kill. It breaks my heart. It's the callousness of it all. And wondering how much that animal suffered before dying because we had to get from point A to B.