Why random shooters kill...

Post Reply New Topic

I just read an article on the Connecticut shooter and he fits a very common motif.

Whether you're Christian, New Age, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish - it doesn't matter, I think we can all agree that everything is interconnected and quite often such events are buildups of energy releasing.

While its ultimately the shooter's choice whether they do such things, its undeniable that many of these men have introversion and being 'wall flowers' in common. Society has a very clear message for shy/introverted men - go kill yourself, you've failed your roll. Society needs to understand that its incredibly risky to treat anyone in this way and it seems to be one of the prime and repeating sources of violent adult failure.

Most of the young ones seem mental. The older ones seem mean and bitter but there are exceptions with either group. Either way anger and alienation are usually in the mix.

Humiliated people are dangerous and as long as the rage is wiithin certain social norms they even sing songs about it and celebrate that kind of violence in other ways. Good luck curing the dark side of the male ego.

here's a simple question that doesn't necessarily lead to a simple answer- would the australian solution work here?

I think violence, like many other things has vogues. Bombings, Hijacking, Muggings, Chemicals, etc come in and out of popularity or appear with new technologies. Mass shootings are currently popular and I think one of the reinforcing influences is the shooter video game. Though I do not believe video games are the cause or only influence. Another influence is the glorification of the military and heavy police (ie SWAT). I could be wrong, but the way some shooters dress the part and carry out the massacre so mimics the games (or movies) it begs the comparison and suggests connection.

Its important to remember that mass shootings are in america only a very small fraction of the carnage. Any serious attempt to curb violence will actually have to focus on a wide range of violent behavior.

But something I find particularly disgusting and inhuman in the mass shootings is the feeling that some of these guys are going for High Scores. Hence the choice of the most defenseless targets.

Interesting thing I read today, there were 7 theaters with in 20 minutes of Colorado shooter James Holmes' home and only 1 banned concealed carry. Guess which theater that was.

i saw shortly after the news reports on the massacre in conn, some pro-gun person came on the air and expressed his opinion that if only the school principal was armed with an assault weapon, that she could've stopped the massacre. but i wonder, how reasonable is it to expect the average tom, dick and sherry with no military experience, to be 1]fool-proof proficient with a military-type weapon, and 2]be able to unobtrusively have such a weapon handy exactly when they need it? if all teachers should be armed and able to stop any interloper, how should this be enabled? should only ex-military personnel [presumably under arms when active-duty] be considered as candidate teachers? being that even cops have effed up and mishandled their weapons, how is a teacher [not to belittle our overworked and underpaid public servants] supposed to be any better, in this regard?

There is no such thing as an assault weapon. That is a made up term by the gun-control lobby for scary looking black guns, they're not any different than any other semi-automatic rifle. There are plenty of people on here much more knowledgeable than myself on the subject of guns so they can correct me if I am wrong. There are assault rifles which the military uses but they have select fire and not commonly available to the public.

But to your point as to if you could count on a teacher or security guard or whomever to use a weapon in self defense, sure it is feasible. You don't need years of experience to handle a gun, my father taught me as a little boy. The real point isn't to come out on top of a gun fight tho but deterrence.

the term "assault weapon" is a general term meant to indicate a rapid-fire [semi-auto] weapon with high-capacity magazine, no matter its color. if the perp in this case could only get a single-shot weapon and/or had strict limits on the ammo he could obtain, at least there would've been fewer deaths. how else can such mass murders be be made less likely to happen? either the weapons/ammo are to be somehow vastly reduced in number/supply/ease of access, or ALL schools/lions' share of public venues are going to have to arm themselves to the teeth with airport-style security. which will it be? i used to work in a gov't hospital with such security, and it was like working in a prison. would you want your children to have to attend a school under that kind of restrictive regimen? what kind of world are we making for our descendents? something's gotta give, sometime.