March for our Lives represents the future

[Pogo]

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

In essence, the shooter makes the choice to kill, not the gun. Whatever the method, death is the goal. Okay. So why this thread?

NO, "death" is not "the goal". Please read it again.
Death is the goal in murder. The goal in mass shootings is sensory self-stimulation. The murderer's objective is to make sure death occurs, to a specific person. The mass shooter has no such concern. The latter is only feeding himself.

And this is not my thread.

Also, why do we have a collective of liberal elites in Hollywood starring in movies glorifying this type of violence? Does that not contribute to this "gun culture"?

It certainly keeps it alive, and that is a self-feeding circle. They make those movies because they $ell. And the reason they $ell is because we Buy. If we didn't buy, they couldn't sell.

So ---- why do we buy? And when I say "we" I mean collectively, but I certainly don't. Personally I'll walk right out of any movie depicting violence without hesitation. But obviously enough people are buying this dystopian shit to make it profitable. Why do people buy it? It's an open question, for I have no idea.

Interestingly you left out television, which reaches far far more population, where you or I, on any hour of any day or night, could flip through the dial and within ten minutes find somebody wielding a gun. That's more perpetuation. None of which have anything to do with "liberal elites" and everything to do with Profit.

These media images --- and certainly not limited to film and TV, they're spread all over comic books, stories, video games, even colloquialisms (why would we call a football formation where the quarterback drops back, a "shotgun"?) serve to normalize the firearm as if it were an everyday thing. Yet if you or I went about our day we'd rarely encounter even one interaction with a firearm that occurs over and over and over and over in that exemplary ten minutes of television. Obviously the latter is not reality, yet it's being sold as if it IS.

In New Orleans there are a lot of what they call "shotgun" houses. What is that? It means a house built in a long rectangle so that if you stood at your front door you could fire a shotgun through the back door on a straight line. Which ignores the elephant-in-the-room question of why anybody would WANT to fire a shotgun in their own house.in the first place. All of this normalizes a dangerous instrument as if it's an everyday piece of furniture. It's obviously indicative of a fixation -- the fetish.

Moreover, mass shootings don't always take place solely for the sensory satisfaction of the malefactor, they can be motivated by an animus (reference the shooting in Maryland).

No idea what you're talking about here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Death is the goal in murder. The goal in mass shootings is sensory self-stimulation.

So these mass killings aren't murder? If you want to achieve maximum "sensory self stimulation" as one intent on doing harm, causing death is the ultimate means to that end. The goal.

Interestingly you left out television, which reaches far far more population, where you or I, on any hour of any day or night, could flip through the dial and within ten minutes find somebody wielding a gun. That's more perpetuation. None of which have anything to do with "liberal elites" and everything to do with Profit.

I meant no inference by the omission. I don't watch TV much anymore. It's pretty much Netflix, anime, and gaming (interestingly enough) for me.

As for it being solely just for "profit", well then, you can add paid hypocrisy to the list. They perpetuate this culture through their craft, and then have the unmitigated gall to lecture the rest of us about the so-called perils of gun violence. You have rappers singing the praises of gang violence on the radio, video games galore using violence in its many forms as a premise.

Forget taking the opinions of actors and celebrities with a grain of salt, I might as well chug the whole damn can.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No idea what you're talking about here.

The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

 

[Pogo]

Death is the goal in murder. The goal in mass shootings is sensory self-stimulation.

So these mass killings aren't murder? If you want to achieve maximum "sensory self stimulation" as one intent on doing harm, causing death is the ultimate means to that end. The goal.

Nope, I don't think so. Again --- as already explained in the quoted post --- their goal is to feed their power trip, and the way they're doing that is to inflict pain on others --- which means they have POWER over them. Whether they actually die or not is actually kind of moot to that goal. Actually I have to believe the deaths are kind of an anticlimax for them, as it means their victim can no longer writhe in pain or scream in terror, which is what feeds them. So then they need more.

A good way to analogize it, and I'm far from the first to do so, is that mass shootings have as much to do with "murder" as rape has to do with "sex". Technically the latter element is an ingredient, but it's not the objective. It's actually just another version of the same thing --- which is, again, why it's a singularly male act.

Understanding the psychology here is crucial to vanquishing it. You can't vanquish something where you don't know how it works.

Interestingly you left out television, which reaches far far more population, where you or I, on any hour of any day or night, could flip through the dial and within ten minutes find somebody wielding a gun. That's more perpetuation. None of which have anything to do with "liberal elites" and everything to do with Profit.

I meant no inference by the omission. I don't watch TV much anymore. It's pretty much Netflix, anime, and gaming (interestingly enough) for me.

As for it being solely just for "profit", well then, you can add paid hypocrisy to the list. They perpetuate this culture through their craft, and then have the unmitigated gall to lecture the rest of us about the so-called perils of gun violence. You have rappers singing the praises of gang violence on the radio, video games galore using violence in its many forms as a premise.

I haven't seen "Hollywood elites" make noises about any "so-called penis". Or about rap, so again, no idea what you're going on about. But yes, it takes many forms including music. And it was doing so long before there was 'rap'.

(1966)​

"Gunsmoke" and "Wyatt Earp" were indoctrinating young TV watchers as far back as 1955. And of course those formats crossed over from radio, where they had thrived for a couple of decades before that.

 

[Pogo]

No idea what you're talking about here.

The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

DING what are two random unrelated quotes for 200 Alex....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

March for our Lives and the younger generation represents the future. Trump and his supporters represent the past.

If a profanity laced, ignorant loon is your version of the future, then we're all done. This generation coming up doesn't have the slightest clue about anything.

Tens of thousands of people crying to the government to protect them.

It's sad sad sad

When these idiots learn that the government not only can't but won't protect them they will wish they had the second amendment rights they are so willing to throw away

Thats exactly right. These idiots are the products of an indoctrination system that has nothing to do with the US constitution.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, if only that Constitution had sump'm in there about free exercise of opinion or petitioning the government or some such, then they'd have a point.

Oh wait.

But, I never came against free exercise of opinion or assembly. Oh wait, you have no point.

 

[Redfish]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

If these Libtards were serious about stopping gun violence they would be marching in the streets of South Chicago and other big city ghettos where most of the gun violence perpetrated by minorities takes place.

However, there agenda is not to stop gun violence. Their agenda is to take firearms away from White Conservative men that oppose their socialists agenda.

100% correct, but you will never get even one of them to admit that that is their real agenda.

Why imagine that, somebody refusing to "admit" to an outside party's comic-book paranoia fantasy contrived because they're too immersed in their own comic books to be LISTENING to what the actual motivations in the real world, are.

The noive. If ya can't depend on a disembodied parrot voice on a message board to tell you what your own motivations are, where ya gonna go?

ok, hopstick. Give us the exact language of a bill that you believe will stop gun violence and mass shootings. I'll be waiting.

 

[Redfish]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

 

[Pogo]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

 

[easyt65]

March for our Lives and the younger generation represents the future. Trump and his supporters represent the past.

The 'March For Lives' was yet another Liberal manipulation of emotion to push their gun-grabbing agenda.

Kids marched with signs that said things like 'Ban Automatic Weapons' and 'If we all don't have guns then nobody will need guns'. If these kids represent our future then America is already lost. This display of ignorance only proves that these kids needed to be back in school actually LEARNING / getting an education instead of being INDOCTRINATED as they obviously usually are.
- Automatic weapon are already banned.
- If Americans guns are taken away we will be left at the mercy of murders and criminals, like the Mexican Drug Cartels to whom Obama gave thousands of automatic weapons and grenades, resulting in the deaths of hundreds to include at least 4 Americans.

One of the 'Parkland students' up on the stage moronically declared, "If I can get an AR15 what is to stop me from getting a nuclear weapon'?

Aside from being a dumbass, he was also an imposter - a liberal ACTOR, a 2015 graduate from a school in CALIFORNIA. He was spotted by a classmate / fellow graduate and exposed.


And during their speeches the liberal extremists could not hide their overall agenda - total seizure of weapons / elimination of the 2nd Amendment....inch by inch, never letting a tragedy go to waste:


"When they give us that inch, the bump stock ban, we will take a mile" - the current speaker at the #MarchForOurLives
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 24, 2018



The liberal media, however, is totally ignoring REAL students from Parkland because their message totally undermines their lying / deceptive gun-grabbing agenda:

Brother of Parkland Victim: My Anti-Gun Peers Need to Stop Abusing My Sister's Memory to Push an Agenda She Didn't Support


Using the dead - kids - who don't even support their agenda to push their agenda. Who speaks for these dead kids? Not the Lieberal gun-grabbers. Not the Liberal politicians. Not the liberal media. Not the School district who knew the shooter was a threat, wanted to have him committed for mental illness, and did nothing. Not the Parkland police who stood down and refused to place themselves in harm's way to try to save them. Not the FBI who apologized for completely failing to follow procedure and do their job.


Parkland Victim's Brother: STOP Abusing My Sister's Memory to Push an Agenda She Didn't Support

.

 

[Redfish]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

we are in agreement, why are you acting like a child with the insults and rants? the problem is that the majority on the left think that legislation can fix the cultural problems.

 

[Redfish]

the march for lives represents our future if our future is to resemble the third reich. Have any of you attended a world history class?

 

[Pogo]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

we are in agreement, why are you acting like a child with the insults and rants? the problem is that the majority on the left think that legislation can fix the cultural problems.

Lemme get this straight.

You whine on and on to me about "your liberal masters in DC" and "the majority on the left" ---- and then you want to pretend I'M the one "acting like a child'?

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts as well. Like I had to.

 

[Redfish]

a challenge for all of our liberal posters:

please give us the language of a bill that you believe would stop gun violence. give us the exact wording, and then explain in detail how it would stop all mass murders in the USA.

then, how about a bill to stop murders by truck, bomb, knife, hammer, baseball bat, fist. please post the legislation that you believe will fix these problems.

This is a serious request, we will anxiously await your proposed bill language.

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

we are in agreement, why are you acting like a child with the insults and rants? the problem is that the majority on the left think that legislation can fix the cultural problems.

Lemme get this straight.

You whine on and on to me about "your liberal masters in DC" and "the majority on the left" ---- and then you want to pretend I'M the one "acting like a child'?

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts as well. Like I had to.

its simple, what I said is true, what you said is not.

the vast majority of the libs in the USA think that some new law regarding guns can stop all mass killings. You said that is wrong, I agreed with you. Are you smoking crack?

 

[Pogo]

It's the wrong question. For multiple reasons.

The first being (the base issue being mass gun slaughter), this is a cultural infection. As such it's not seriously curtailed by "bills". It's curtailed by cultural change, which is an entirely different approach.

The second reason it's the wrong question is the false comparison between the issue as stated, and "murder". "Murder" may be the legal term describing the result of mass gun slaughter but it is not the objective of the slaughterer. Even if it is the inevitable end result. Therefore it's an entirely different motivation.

The (true) murderer targets specifically. An unfaithful spouse, a cheating business partner, a witness who knows too much. Specific and personal. His objective is to take out that person/people, for reasons specific TO those people. The mass shooter has no such specificity in mind; taking advantage of any target that happens to present. Doesn't matter who it is. The mass shooter's objective is carnage; the sensory input of seeing people (again, makes no difference which people) squirm and scream and bleed and drop in powerless pain. The shooter is feeding his sensory addiction, usually out of his own real or imagined sense of powerlessness (which is why the mass shooter is virtually always a "he") with the sensory input that only a firearm can provide.

And that's exactly why we have mass shootings and not so much mass stabbings, mass poisonings, mass hammer or baseball attacks, etc. Those cannot provide the immediate sensory input a firearm can, from a remote-control safe distance, even from one's hotel room or tower perch. That's also why their weapon of choice is a specifically military infantry model designed specifically for rapidly strafing a line of "enemy" infantry armed with the same thing -- because it delivers MAXIMUM carnage --- which is what they, the mass shooter, seek. In other words we have mass gun slaughter because we have a gun culture. If we had a poisoning culture, where you couldn't flip through any TV dial or any movie theater or any video game without encountering a depiction of somebody being poisoned -- then we'd have mass poisonings. Because we would have made poisoning "cool".

Which returns us to the cultural --- if we (seriously) want to eliminate that kind of scene, then it's first necessary to remove the desire for carnage-as-drug. And to get there we have to first quit the whole fetishizing and glorification of guns, right down to the basic idea that the solution for any problem is to shoot at it and blow it up. That death-cult mentality has got to go. Starkly simple as that.

So ultimately the solution for all this is not so much legislative as spritual.

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

we are in agreement, why are you acting like a child with the insults and rants? the problem is that the majority on the left think that legislation can fix the cultural problems.

Lemme get this straight.

You whine on and on to me about "your liberal masters in DC" and "the majority on the left" ---- and then you want to pretend I'M the one "acting like a child'?

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts as well. Like I had to.

its simple, what I said is true, what you said is not.

the vast majority of the libs in the USA think that some new law regarding guns can stop all mass killings. You said that is wrong, I agreed with you. Are you smoking crack?

Wrong again. I offered no opinion on what "the vast majority of" anybody thinks. I don't post that way, ever. unless I'm quoting a poll and even then I'd be reporting what the poll says. And if you had posted it I would have asked for a link.

 

[SavannahMann]

March for our Lives and the younger generation represents the future. Trump and his supporters represent the past.

Sadly I think you are right. The future is morons who don’t know the difference between democracy and republic. They don’t know the Constitution or history. They feel entitled to insult people and then demand the right to be protected from any insults in return.

This is the future. Ignorant jackasses who deride anyone who knows anything about a subject. Morons who think that anytime they don’t get what they want is unfair.

 

[Redfish]

I happen to agree with you on that, why don't any of your liberal masters in DC see it that way?

are they scared of losing votes If they call ghetto culture "ghetto culture"?

I see you answered your own previous post, having not seen this answer you already got yesterday. Two minutes. That means you must have devoted, what, 27 seconds to reading it?

Maybe you should read the whole thing, whereupon you'll find out that what I just said, as I've been saying for the entire five years I've been on this site, is that it's NOT something that's fixed by "DC" or by any "bill".

No doubt in another five years I'll still be posting the same thing and no doubt it will get the same ignoring.

Go back and re-read where I started with "it's the wrong question". And actually read it this time.

we are in agreement, why are you acting like a child with the insults and rants? the problem is that the majority on the left think that legislation can fix the cultural problems.

Lemme get this straight.

You whine on and on to me about "your liberal masters in DC" and "the majority on the left" ---- and then you want to pretend I'M the one "acting like a child'?

Perhaps you should go back and read your own posts as well. Like I had to.

its simple, what I said is true, what you said is not.

the vast majority of the libs in the USA think that some new law regarding guns can stop all mass killings. You said that is wrong, I agreed with you. Are you smoking crack?

Wrong again. I offered no opinion on what "the vast majority of" anybody thinks. I don't post that way, ever. unless I'm quoting a poll and even then I'd be reporting what the poll says. And if you had posted it I would have asked for a link.

geez, is English not your first language. I never said the YOU made any claim about the majority of libs.

We simply agreed that the problem is cultural, not legislative, and you want to argue about that agreement. WTF dude!

 

[IsaacNewton]

March for our Lives and the younger generation represents the future. Trump and his supporters represent the past.

Yes Trump and his bug eaters want to drag humanity back to the 1800s where they feel comfortable. Companies free to rape employees, the land, the taxpayer and every other culture on Earth. One could feel free to discriminate against anyone 'different'.