So Why Did The Mass Shootings Occur This Last Weekend? Well I Gots The Answers

[ImmortalFlame]

It would be interesting if there were an alternative universe somewhere where animals had weapons and mankind animals were hunted. They’d deserve it.

I am now working on this as a film script.

Working title, "Food Chain". Any other title suggestions?

 

[Stevicus]

No, it isn´t some form of paranoia. It is simply dealing with reality and mitigating risks. As a LEO, a sheepdog, I saw what the wolves did to the sheep. It was always good to see an armed sheep who dealt with the wolf preying on them.

When the antigunners stop robberies, rapes, and murders, in peoples homes, then we would not need arms to defend ourselves.

Yes, although even then, the odds seem pretty slim that something like that will actually happen - depending on where one lives and the local crime rates, along with other factors.

But you do raise an interesting point about wolves and other predators out there. There are certain personality types which might be regarded as "predatory" and/or unnecessarily aggressive - and those types of people could be pinpointed and examined more closely. We could examine the cause and effect between predatory bullying and the propensity for victims of bullying to retaliate - sometimes with mass shootings.

 

[Stevicus]

This makes some sense. Remember, for the most part law enforcement is reactive. One cannot depend on them to always be able to protect you. A response time of one minute can be too late.

I believe the individual has the primary responsibility of protecting themselves.

The law itself also restricts what an individual can actually do to protect himself.

But I agree that the police can take their time in responding. Here's a local case where a man called 911 to report an unwanted intruder on his property. (Tucson man told dispatcher ‘I’m too old to fight’ before officers found him dead) It took the police over 90 minutes to respond, at which time they found the man dead.

They claim that they thought it was only a case of disorderly conduct, which made it a lower priority call.

Still, one may well wonder what was going on at the time that would have been a higher priority.

I'd check to see all police contacts during that 90 minute period, and note how many minor traffic citations were written or if there were any arrests for drug possession or prostitution sting operations - and try to determine just exactly what on earth was considered a higher priority than a man being assaulted on his own property.

But yeah, maybe if that guy had a gun, he might be alive today. Hard to say.

Remember, one of the first things hitler did was confiscate the peoples firearms.

It is totally irrational to say it cannot happen here.

I always heard that was somewhat of a myth, about Hitler confiscating everyone's firearms. I'm not sure what their gun laws were under the Kaiser or the Weimar government or if they were all that different under Hitler. My sense is that Europeans are far more amenable to firearms restrictions than Americans are.

 

[Stevicus]

In the end, I think we are at the point that something just needs to be tried. We select what are figured to be the most heavily influencing factors and make changes, see what happens. My personal vote would be to erect a giant monument somewhere prominently displayed in the U.S. (likely DC), called "The Wall of Cowards." You make it a pure, glowing yellow, and into it's face you etch the names of anyone who commits a mass shooting that meets whatever criteria is established. You make it a big media ordeal to show the authorities etching the next person's name into the wall, and you even etch the names of their parents. "So-and-so, son of [X] and [Y] Smith". If they write a manifesto, you print a copy and stuff it into the monument's sister-monument - a giant styrofoam-rubber a$$ with a hole made just for the stuffing-in of documents. You try and get the media on board with calling out these people as the "next official coward of the state." Just rub that crap in until everyone knows exactly where their legacy will stand if they pull this kind of horrific act.

This is an interesting approach. I would also add another dimension to it as well. A lot of these cases of mass shootings are the result of people who have been abused, bullied, or otherwise victimized by parents, peers, or other kinds of predatory, abusive personality types out there. These people should also be publicly named and shamed and considered just as responsible for the act as the shooters themselves.

Do that, and people might be more inclined to mind their P's and Q's in how they treat people.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ah yes. How many times have we heard, "Boy, if it wasn't for all the anti-God diatribes I would never have bought an AK-47 and slaughtered all those people."

.

Right! So why are you making more diatribes, inciting still more violence?!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Problem is, I'm willing to bet such a monument would actually have the reverse affect on mass shootings. It would ensure that the shooter's name and manifesto are essentially preserved forever, even if they are notorious. People who commit mass shootings aren't generally terribly concerned with people thinking positively of them - otherwise, they probably wouldn't be mass shooters. They're more often sociopathic narcissists, who only care about being known, even if it's notorious. Furthermore, there will always be people who'd treat that kind of monument as a form of martyrdom (to many, becoming an "enemy of the state" is actually aspirational).

It would be much more effective to completely obliterate any and all records of the shooter's existence, remove their name and intentions from any future reporting of the incident, and to instead erect a monument to people killed in mass shootings that omits any shooter's names. This is actually something recommended by the world health organization, and studies have shown mass shootings in which the shooter's name is widely reported in the media tend to result in a larger number of subsequent and copy-cat killings than when the shooter's name is omitted.

I do like the giant a$$ idea, though. Could we just do that anyway?

I was going more for the "you're considered a childish, crying baby who couldn't cope with reality even if you tried" angle, rather than them being labeled "notorious" or "bad." They get labeled incompetent, impotent, and completely lacking a single cell of spinal cord. Never mention that what they did was bad. Refer to it as "cowardly," "incompetence," or an admittance of weakness and impotence. They chose the gun as their weapon of choice for a reason - because they knew full well that they couldn't do ANYTHING on their own. Their actual power to enact a mass killing without massive augmentation? Precisely ZERO. They'd be immediately stopped and put down, chained up and thrown away. This is the reason the gun is chosen, and no other. An admittance of weakness of a very profound sort. Guns tend to make people feel macho and powerful... when only the exact opposite is ever true. The moment you have selected a gun to perpetrate violence is the moment you admit you are afraid and weak physically, emotionally and mentally. I'm for driving THAT message into anyone and everyone. All the time.

And the reason being is that I ultimately feel that these people are trying to make some sort of "statement." A statement about what they feel is the state of the world, or a statement about how mistreated by the world they feel they were. If they know, for certain, that that statement is going to be lost in a blanket of their being outed as an abject coward, and that it is damn sure that nothing is going to change on their account - given this type of activity as the attempted "catalyst", then I think it might deter people. If their statement simply can't be made, then what would be the point?

 

[shmogie]

The law itself also restricts what an individual can actually do to protect himself.

But I agree that the police can take their time in responding. Here's a local case where a man called 911 to report an unwanted intruder on his property. (Tucson man told dispatcher ‘I’m too old to fight’ before officers found him dead) It took the police over 90 minutes to respond, at which time they found the man dead.

They claim that they thought it was only a case of disorderly conduct, which made it a lower priority call.

Still, one may well wonder what was going on at the time that would have been a higher priority.

I'd check to see all police contacts during that 90 minute period, and note how many minor traffic citations were written or if there were any arrests for drug possession or prostitution sting operations - and try to determine just exactly what on earth was considered a higher priority than a man being assaulted on his own property.

But yeah, maybe if that guy had a gun, he might be alive today. Hard to say.



I always heard that was somewhat of a myth, about Hitler confiscating everyone's firearms. I'm not sure what their gun laws were under the Kaiser or the Weimar government or if they were all that different under Hitler. My sense is that Europeans are far more amenable to firearms restrictions than Americans are.

I hope that in the case you cited there was accountability. I cannot get my mind around this kind of sloppy and dangerous police work.

The words ¨ I am too old to fight" should have clearly indicated the potential for violence, 90 minutes to respond is criminal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was going more for the "you're considered a childish, crying baby who couldn't cope with reality even if you tried" angle, rather than them being labeled "notorious" or "bad." They get labeled incompetent, impotent, and completely lacking a single cell of spinal cord. Never mention that what they did was bad. Refer to it as "cowardly," "incompetence," or and admittance of weakness and impotence. They chose the gun as their weapon of choice for a reason - because they knew full well that they couldn't do ANYTHING on their own. Their actual power to enact a mass killing without massive augmentation? Precisely ZERO. They'd be immediately stopped and put down, chained up and thrown away. This is the reason the gun is chosen, and no other. An admittance of weakness of a very profound sort. Guns tend to make people feel macho and powerful... when only the exact opposite is ever true. The moment you have selected a gun to perpetrate violence is the moment you admit you are afraid and weak physically, emotionally and mentally. I'm for driving THAT message into anyone and everyone. All the time.

I admire the sentiment, but I still think immortalizing their names will still have the opposite of the desired effect.

Hard to say what the best method would be to really get that message across to a broader audience. Perhaps a similar "Cowards Monument", but one that should have no names on it, and try to drill its imagary so much into the public consciousness that it begins to actually symbolize the act of mass shooting. Like, it would be on the heading of the wiki page of "Mass Shootings", that sort of thing.

Any suggestions for a suitable symbol? I first thought of the image of a gun, but with the end of barrel all flaccid and floppy, but that might be a tad on the nose.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am now working on this as a film script.

Working title, "Food Chain". Any other title suggestions?

How about "Dog Top?" A reversal of "Top Dog." Sort of an enigmatic title until you think about it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I admire the sentiment, but I still think immortalizing their names will still have the opposite of the desired effect.

Hard to say what the best method would be to really get that message across to a broader audience. Perhaps a similar "Cowards Monument", but one that should have no names on it, and try to drill its imagary so much into the public consciousness that it begins to actually symbolize the act of mass shooting. Like, it would be on the heading of the wiki page of "Mass Shootings", that sort of thing.

Any suggestions for a suitable symbol? I first thought of the image of a gun, but with the end of barrel all flaccid and floppy, but that might be a tad on the nose.

I get the "no names" idea. So maybe what gets etched is the place and date - so that there is some reason to keep updating it and keep it in the public's collective consciousness.

As for imagery, maybe something like a huge version of this:

but with one arm outstretched, hand around the barrel of a gun. The stock of the gun (point of contact with the ground) could be where the etchings go. Although this image may embody more a feeling of "sorrow" than cowardice. I don't know how that would be interpreted by a person thinking of being "the next."

 

[Stevicus]

I admire the sentiment, but I still think immortalizing their names will still have the opposite of the desired effect.

Hard to say what the best method would be to really get that message across to a broader audience. Perhaps a similar "Cowards Monument", but one that should have no names on it, and try to drill its imagary so much into the public consciousness that it begins to actually symbolize the act of mass shooting. Like, it would be on the heading of the wiki page of "Mass Shootings", that sort of thing.

Any suggestions for a suitable symbol? I first thought of the image of a gun, but with the end of barrel all flaccid and floppy, but that might be a tad on the nose.

I think there's something about human nature that people will always want to know the names of the perpetrators and what their story is. Some of the more violent or unique killers even might develop a certain fascination bordering on a cultish following.

I was thinking about this while reading that this month is the 50th anniversary of the Manson Family murders. Someone just bought the house where the LaBianca murders took place, and neighbors are worried that they might turn it into some kind of tourist attraction.

I don't know what it is - maybe some kind of underlying love of violence in our culture. We glorify it, we extol it - sometimes there are even parades and fireworks.

 

[Curious George]

It really isn't. Owning a gun is more likely to resort in violence, death and suicide. That is not vague, ambiguous or broad.

That is a fallacy. It is similar to saying being black is more likely to make one a criminal.

You cannot apply statistics to individual cases like that.