The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it. A gun control topic can be found here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472
Also stop posting links to his facebook. TL will be no part of an unconfirmed witch hunt.
27 people died Friday in a school shooting in Newtown Connecticut, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN.
20 of the dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School were children, 6 adults and the shooter.
A parent who was inside the school at the time of the attack said she heard what sounded like at least 100 rounds being fired. She said she saw two school employees who had died.
Shooter is dead.
Shooter's mother is a teacher at the school, she is among the victims.
Shooter's name is Adam Lanza, not Ryan Lanza like previously reported.
Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
It is likely to be the most deadly school shooting in US history.
Reports are now suggesting 27 dead, most of them young elementary school children. The dead also include the school principle and psychologist.
Police have confirmed that the suspected shooter is dead. The shooter had two hand guns, and has been reported to be a father of a child at the school. There were earlier unconfirmed reports that a second shooter was present.
There is little doubt in my mind now that the massive amounts of media attention we give these school shootings is increasing the occurance. This is really an immense tragedy, so please have some respect in this thread.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
I just said to my mom while watching it on news that im sick of debating about why lax gun control is bad. And totally share your thoughts.
Tho very tragic for the familys and fellow students as well as teacher.
I'm not going to take part in this gun control debate shit, it happens all the time. However, I want to bring up a very important point that I think needs to be explored.
Let's take a step back, and look at the issue assuming we CANT ban guns or increase restrictions. I think you'll find a plethora of other options that can be just as effective as making a hasty ban. I'm not saying whether I support gun control or not, as it's irrelevant. But I think instead of debating gun control, you discuss the possibilities outside of gun control to stop mass shootings like this. I think you people will find many more solutions that are far more reasonable.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Yes, but someone who is willing to go to the extreme of murdering 18 kids is also very willing to go to a far lesser extreme of obtaining a gun illegally or going through a longer process legally.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Absolutely terrible. I have always been on the side of sending my kids to public schools, but now that I have one I can't imagine doing so with the amount of shootings that are happening.
I can't even comprehend the situation for the parents and families. My prayers are with them.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Yes, but someone who is willing to go to the extreme of murdering 18 kids is also very willing to go to a far lesser extreme of obtaining a gun illegally or going through a longer process legally.
That may be, but we increase the odds that some component of what is supposed to be a thorough screening system catches these sorts of plots in vitro, and making guns even marginally more difficult to acquire would help. Clearly, as fruscainte and JD point out in the last page, more than mere gun access is at work here, but it is certainly a component that needs to revisiting.
On December 15 2012 03:15 ThreeAcross wrote: Absolutely terrible. I have always been on the side of sending my kids to public schools, but now that I have one I can't imagine doing so with the amount of shootings that are happening.
I can't even comprehend the situation for the parents and families. My prayers are with them.
The media coverage in a nation of 300,000,000+ people is warping your perception in my opinion. The kids are still far more likely to die on the drive to school than in a shooting.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Everywhere sells ammunition including country gas stations. As for automatic weapons it's an expensive and lengthy process involving federal bureaus.
Hm, with the frequency of this type of event increasing as it is, by the time my future kids are school age it will be a real threat to their safety... I think I'll home school if at all possible, they can socialize at other things.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
I just don't understand what the practical application is for a military grade assault rifle in the hands of Bob the mechanic. What is he going to use it for? Personal protection? Against what, the Hulk?
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
An automatic weapon fires whatever cartridge it is chambered for. There are handguns that fire 9mm and fully automatic weapons that fire 9mm.
Getting a legal automatic weapon is extremely expensive, but you can order whatever ammo off the internet, which is usually a good idea because bulk pricing is pretty good.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
Your sporting goods store does not sell automatic rifles.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
I highly doubt your store sells automatic weapons. You're probably thinking of semi auto rifles. Department stores don't sell full auto weapons.
yeah 150.000 people die everyday, yet americans feel like their deaths matters more and post everytime this kind of isolated incident happens zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
On December 15 2012 03:18 TriO wrote: In before many Europeans saying America is bad and gunlaws.
Too late.
Yeah, these threads should just be banned. Too many uninformed people show up in droves spouting bullshit. It's already starting with people claiming you can buy automatic weapons from department stores. lol.
On December 15 2012 03:15 ThreeAcross wrote: Absolutely terrible. I have always been on the side of sending my kids to public schools, but now that I have one I can't imagine doing so with the amount of shootings that are happening.
I can't even comprehend the situation for the parents and families. My prayers are with them.
The media coverage in a nation of 300,000,000+ people is warping your perception in my opinion. The kids are still far more likely to die on the drive to school than in a shooting.
Well... if the root of the problem isn't actually gun control then you have even more difficult problems to tackle, like the possibility of mental health issues, glorification of violence and media coverage feeding frenzies on shootings, and apathy or antipathy for other human beings that's more endemic in the US than other countries. Things that might cause us to look at ourselves and the people who deal with and whom society models after. Because school shootings are much more frequent in the US as a phenomenon than other countries, even ones with rampant violence and corruption in the government and media such as Mexico, Columbia, Liberia, and so forth.
There are more shootings that occur in the US specific to schools than the rest of the world combined multiple times over, and I would hardly classify the US as an impoverished or unprivileged country where you expect this to happen. So what is the actual problem?
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Everywhere sells ammunition including country gas stations. As for automatic weapons it's an expensive and lengthy process involving federal bureaus.
In theory, it is. In practice, not so much. If you do not believe me, check out this site. Just check out the "equipment exchange" and revel in all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons being offered. One can literally buy a machine gun directly from another person and have it sent to a local gun shop for pickup without the involvement of a single federal agency. A friend of mine did just that. And if you happen to live in a state with gun shows, just ask a vendor what he's got behind the display. It really is that easy.
On December 15 2012 03:23 AgniKai wrote: yeah 150.000 people die everyday, yet americans feel like their deaths matters more and post everytime this kind of isolated incident happens zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
not very many of those are 5-10 year olds getting shot in their elementary school
On December 15 2012 03:15 iNcontroL wrote: Sad... Not much more to say. Thoughts will be with the families
My thoughts as well, not much point arguing one way or the other as nothing will change. I just hope the families are able to move on from this in time.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
An automatic weapon fires whatever cartridge it is chambered for. There are handguns that fire 9mm and fully automatic weapons that fire 9mm.
Getting a legal automatic weapon is extremely expensive, but you can order whatever ammo off the internet, which is usually a good idea because bulk pricing is pretty good.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
Your sporting goods store does not sell automatic rifles.
I see. Not too familiar with firearms I'm afraid. Is it common for people to be armed with heavier weapons in the US, as in weapons typically used by the military?
These kinds of events are always tragic. But the fact that this shooting was mainly against children is absolutely disgusting, it makes me truly and completely sad. My heart goes out to those kids and their families.
Newtown is quite a ways away from where I live. Still, it’s scary for something like this to happen in my home state. (To be fair it’s scary anywhere, just closer to home today)
On December 15 2012 03:23 AgniKai wrote: yeah 150.000 people die everyday, yet americans feel like their deaths matters more and post everytime this kind of isolated incident happens zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yeah, sure, but 150,000 elementary school children don't get shot to death by a lunatic everyday you fucking moron.
On December 15 2012 03:24 101toss wrote: Gun control doesn't stop shit like this
Remember the string of kindergarten knife attacks in china?
So sick of people telling me they are sad to see this kind of thing, but they won't support the most basic gun control laws. Yes, I know guns don't kill people, but they make it really easy.
Gun related Deaths by Country (per 100,000 population)
Japan 0.07 England 0.22 Ukraine 0.35 Spain 0.63 Germany 1.10 Israel 1.86
On December 15 2012 03:15 ThreeAcross wrote: Absolutely terrible. I have always been on the side of sending my kids to public schools, but now that I have one I can't imagine doing so with the amount of shootings that are happening.
I can't even comprehend the situation for the parents and families. My prayers are with them.
I really can't see how a privatized school would have ended up any different. This REALLY isn't a public versus private thing. At all.
This is absolutely horrific. I can't even begin to imagine how it's like being a parent to one of those kids right now, or five years down the line. If anything is insanity-inducing, this is it.
Edit: That said, apparently the kid of the shooter attends this school. What's the back-story here?
On December 15 2012 03:23 AgniKai wrote: yeah 150.000 people die everyday, yet americans feel like their deaths matters more and post everytime this kind of isolated incident happens zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
not very many of those are 5-10 year olds getting shot in their elementary school
And what source are you basing this on? You have no idea what's going on in africa/asia.
Fucking horrendous. This country as a whole is absolutely and utterly fucked, cannot even comprehend the thought process for those that are still pro-gun.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
the difference between full automatic and semi automatic lies in a weapon part, not the amunition.
i remember when i was in the army that the army rifles had a specific part that could make civilian versions of that weapon into basically the army version, because one day one of those parts was not accounted for and the whole base was on lockdown until they found it in a drawer or something.
also, who the hell kills 20 children. I dont think gun control would have fixed this.
On December 15 2012 03:24 101toss wrote: Gun control doesn't stop shit like this
Remember the string of kindergarten knife attacks in china?
i'm not super opinionated on the gun control topic, but your statement annoys me. it takes a hell of a lot longer to kill 28 people with a knife than with a full-auto gun. gun control wouldn't stop the acts of violence, but could minimize the impact of these tragedies.
On December 15 2012 03:27 amazingxkcd wrote: As if any gun control laws is going to stop bastards from illegally obtaining guns regardless.
Well, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what they can do. It's a lot harder to get a gun illegally when they're not readily available in the first place.
On December 15 2012 03:15 ThreeAcross wrote: Absolutely terrible. I have always been on the side of sending my kids to public schools, but now that I have one I can't imagine doing so with the amount of shootings that are happening.
I can't even comprehend the situation for the parents and families. My prayers are with them.
I really can't see how a privatized school would have ended up any different. This REALLY isn't a public versus private thing. At all.
This is absolutely horrific. I can't even begin to imagine how it's like being a parent to one of those kids right now, or five years down the line. If anything is insanity-inducing, this is it.
Edit: That said, apparently the kid of the shooter attends this school. What's the back-story here?
It has nothing to do with public / private schools. I was talking about home schooled.
Of course the chances are slim, but your mind works differently when you have a kid that nearing school age. It isn't just shootings that make me wary of the school system either.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Everywhere sells ammunition including country gas stations. As for automatic weapons it's an expensive and lengthy process involving federal bureaus.
In theory, it is. In practice, not so much. If you do not believe me, check out this site. Just check out the "equipment exchange" and revel in all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons being offered. One can literally buy a machine gun directly from another person and have it sent to a local gun shop for pickup without the involvement of a single federal agency. A friend of mine did just that. And if you happen to live in a state with gun shows, just ask a vendor what he's got behind the display. It really is that easy.
You cannot buy a automatic firearm without going through the legal process for it. It takes time to process the request and investigation on you by the ATF after that you must do paperwork with the local law enforcement. There is NO WAY you can legally purchase an auto weapon without going through the ATF it's simply impossible. If anyone is telling you they got a fully auto without federal involvement they are either lying or purchased illegaly.
On December 15 2012 03:24 101toss wrote: Gun control doesn't stop shit like this
Remember the string of kindergarten knife attacks in china?
So you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter if such a person attacks with a knife or handgun? Of course there is a difference: Killing someone with a handgun involves a finger movement and it's not necesssary being at close range to the person. It lowers the difficulties/scruple of killing somebody.
On December 15 2012 03:27 amazingxkcd wrote: As if any gun control laws is going to stop bastards from illegally obtaining guns regardless.
No, but it slows the process and gives people in the environment of the shooter the opportunity to realize theres something wrong with this person and maybe prevent such a tragedy.
What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
The media makes it worse by focusing all of their reporting on the incident for the next few days, giving so much attention to it makes others want to do the same. For someone who has given up on life and has a gun the idea of becoming a martyr and having the whole world talk about you isn't so bad.
I go to CNN and it says " U.S. SCHOOL MASSACRE " in huge caps with breaking news on the front page, sigh.
On December 15 2012 03:23 AgniKai wrote: yeah 150.000 people die everyday, yet americans feel like their deaths matters more and post everytime this kind of isolated incident happens zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yeah, sure, but 150,000 elementary school children don't get shot to death by a lunatic everyday you fucking moron.
Let's get the United States out of the gutter when it comes to murder rates. There is no reason for a first world country to have third world murder rates, and access to guns plays a gigantic role in that. Our homicide rate should not be more than Palestine and double what Iraq has...
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
An automatic weapon fires whatever cartridge it is chambered for. There are handguns that fire 9mm and fully automatic weapons that fire 9mm.
Getting a legal automatic weapon is extremely expensive, but you can order whatever ammo off the internet, which is usually a good idea because bulk pricing is pretty good.
On December 15 2012 03:16 J_Slim wrote:
On December 15 2012 03:14 McBengt wrote:
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
Your sporting goods store does not sell automatic rifles.
I see. Not too familiar with firearms I'm afraid. Is it common for people to be armed with heavier weapons in the US, as in weapons typically used by the military?
Quite the opposite. Military firearms are not designed to kill people (designed to wound and maim them instead) while hunters in america prefer high powered rifles and shotguns. Cheap illegal handguns are the things that cause most homicides in inner city gang violence. Shootings like this are only a tiny fraction of gun violence in america. The horrible part out of all of this is that these mass shootings happen in "gun free areas" where once someone comes in with a gun and wants to kill people no one is capable of stopping them.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Everywhere sells ammunition including country gas stations. As for automatic weapons it's an expensive and lengthy process involving federal bureaus.
In theory, it is. In practice, not so much. If you do not believe me, check out this site. Just check out the "equipment exchange" and revel in all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons being offered. One can literally buy a machine gun directly from another person and have it sent to a local gun shop for pickup without the involvement of a single federal agency. A friend of mine did just that. And if you happen to live in a state with gun shows, just ask a vendor what he's got behind the display. It really is that easy.
You cannot buy a automatic firearm without going through the legal process for it. It takes time to process the request and investigation on you by the ATF after that you must do paperwork with the local law enforcement. There is NO WAY you can legally purchase an auto weapon without going through the ATF it's simply impossible. If anyone is telling you they got a fully auto without federal involvement they are either lying or purchased illegaly.
Illegal purchases are very common. There is so little regulation that there's essentially no risk in doing so.
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
Well, I'm betting this lunatic was extremely drugged out of his mind. That is the only explanation I can think of...
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
Well, I'm betting this lunatic was extremely drugged out of his mind. That is the only explanation I can think of...
There are far more drugged up people with zero prospects in the world than the American population, but why does it happen with higher frequency in the US?
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Everywhere sells ammunition including country gas stations. As for automatic weapons it's an expensive and lengthy process involving federal bureaus.
In theory, it is. In practice, not so much. If you do not believe me, check out this site. Just check out the "equipment exchange" and revel in all of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons being offered. One can literally buy a machine gun directly from another person and have it sent to a local gun shop for pickup without the involvement of a single federal agency. A friend of mine did just that. And if you happen to live in a state with gun shows, just ask a vendor what he's got behind the display. It really is that easy.
You cannot buy a automatic firearm without going through the legal process for it. It takes time to process the request and investigation on you by the ATF after that you must do paperwork with the local law enforcement. There is NO WAY you can legally purchase an auto weapon without going through the ATF it's simply impossible. If anyone is telling you they got a fully auto without federal involvement they are either lying or purchased illegaly.
Illegal purchases are very common. There is so little regulation that there's essentially no risk in doing so.
I seriously doubt it's very common for licensed gun dealers to sell automatic weapons illegally. Do you understand the risks to their business and the criminal penalties for doing such a thing? There is actually very high risks, automatic weapons are different than other firearms because they are all registered with the government and are traceable unlike non auto weapons in most states.
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
Well, I'm betting this lunatic was extremely drugged out of his mind. That is the only explanation I can think of...
People don't need drugs to be insane. It's scarier to think that a person could just do that but scapegoating drugs isn't the answer.
27 dead, 18 children i have heard. OUCH (Source:SKY News)
20year old arrested and in custody, atleast in American he will get the death penalty and will be dead in a year or so after the trial. If this happened in England the guy would get a prison cell for 30years and the ability to play xbox and watch tv...
Do you really think gun laws would have stopped him from killing children? Obviously not. Gun control wont stop criminals like this from acquiring firearms, it will just prevent honest citizens from protecting themselves from these criminals.
On December 15 2012 03:38 Ryps wrote: Whats with schools in America, how do kids even get guns so easily.
It wasn't a kid, it was a full grown man who went to a school to do his shooting. The media attention these events get probably helped in that decision to be honest although 27 adults dying would still be a tragedy.
One day, US will probably have to look at the problem with objectivity and seriously. As many has said, its not normal for one of the world's richest country to have this crimes happening so often (more often than elsewhere)
Controlling guns could probably help, but I highly doubt it will erase the problem alone. As many have said it, making it hard to acquire guns won't stop those who really want one from getting one through black market, but it will make his life harder, which is a plus. Instead of being mad and going to his drawer to get his gun, we can only hope that the long processus in acquiring a gun will cool down his anger, or make him think.
I personally think the problem is much bigger, probably has something to do with culture, or lack of help to the men and women with psychological needs, dunno.
Kwark, I cannot report posts yet, but could you please moderate this thread harshly? People are already arguing gun control, americentrizism etc.
Seriously the dead bodies are not even cold and people already climb on their backs to argue their respective agenda. Really leaves a bad taste in my mouth..
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
Well, I'm betting this lunatic was extremely drugged out of his mind. That is the only explanation I can think of...
There are far more drugged up people with zero prospects in the world than the American population, but why does it happen with higher frequency in the US?
That's not true. Get your facts straight before you talk like you know everything already.
"Experts say most of those prescriptions are unnecessary. The United States makes up only 4.6 percent of the world's population, but consumes 80 percent of its opioids -- and 99 percent of the world's hydrocodone, the opiate that is in Vicodin."
US is the most drugged up country in the world, drugs+guns = bad combo. Almost all of these psycho mass shooters are drugged up on psychiatric medications. That batman killer was on psychiatric medications and I'll bet the people who shot these kids were drugged up as well.
@Kwark, while I agree that we shouldn't exploit events for political gains (I don't believe I am aiming for any), these lives lost would be a waste if we don't do something for the future. And I guess, motivated by this desire, this is what leads people to argue over and over.
This is one of the worst things to happen in America in a long time. A man making the actual decision to kill dozens of children and carrying it out... it's horrifying. This and the 2011 Norway attacks leave you questioning humanity.
... damn. Fucking kids man. Saddening, this news is.
On December 15 2012 03:42 KwarK wrote: The gun control argument stops after this post. There is now a mod note, you have been warned. Make a separate topic if you feel you have to.
On December 15 2012 03:44 XenOmega wrote: @Kwark, while I agree that we shouldn't exploit events for political gains (I don't believe I am aiming for any), these lives lost would be a waste if we don't do something for the future. And I guess, motivated by this desire, this is what leads people to argue over and over.
that's true but i think mods just don't want THIS thread to turn into a gun control thread. make another one that's dedicated to the topic if they want to.
Unbelievable... If it isn't some creep fuck hiding in a bathroom, it's some maniac with an automatic. Even elementary schools are not exempt from terror. What a sad, sick world.
Round and round we go. Shit like this is going to continue happening unless our culture changes. Will be interesting to hear about the killers story as fucked up as it may be.
On December 15 2012 03:42 KwarK wrote: The gun control argument stops after this post. There is now a mod note, you have been warned. Make a separate topic if you feel you have to.
Are we still allowed to ask how something like this could have happened?
On December 15 2012 03:24 101toss wrote: Gun control doesn't stop shit like this
Remember the string of kindergarten knife attacks in china?
So sick of people telling me they are sad to see this kind of thing, but they won't support the most basic gun control laws. Yes, I know guns don't kill people, but they make it really easy.
Gun related Deaths by Country (per 100,000 population)
Japan 0.07 England 0.22 Ukraine 0.35 Spain 0.63 Germany 1.10 Israel 1.86
That stat doesn't mean a whole lot to be honest. You're going to have to at least take out suicide and accidental deaths which bumps it down to a 3/100,000. Especially when you're using Japan as an example, which has one of the world's highest suicide rates.... just not by firearms. Take out gang related violence and it'll probably jump down significantly more.
On December 15 2012 03:47 Hrrrrm wrote: Round and round we go. Shit like this is going to continue happening unless our culture changes. Will be interesting to hear about the killers story as fucked up as it may be.
What do you mean? What needs to change? I don't know of any cultural values americans have that would promote violence against children. Violent culture? Yeah, I can agree with that but what's that got to do with some crazy murdering little kids?
"Police officer who searched the building completely broke down when he entered the (kindergarden)classroom, upon seeing piles of kids..." this is heartbreaking
On December 15 2012 03:47 Hrrrrm wrote: Round and round we go. Shit like this is going to continue happening unless our culture changes. Will be interesting to hear about the killers story as fucked up as it may be.
How would a culture change mean that psychos like this asshole wouldn't go on killing sprees? Honest question.
May those who died find rest, and those who survived find some kind of peace. These types of events always leave us questioning why the man did it, but I think it's simple enough to proclaim him an evil fuck, and project our thoughts and good energy on those who survive the killed.
On December 15 2012 03:47 Hrrrrm wrote: Round and round we go. Shit like this is going to continue happening unless our culture changes. Will be interesting to hear about the killers story as fucked up as it may be.
What do you mean? What needs to change? I don't know of any cultural values americans have that would promote violence against children. Violent culture? Yeah, I can agree with that but what's that got to do with some crazy murdering little kids?
Well, if some psychopathic narcissist wants the entire country to focus on them and talk about them and cement their name in history, they know exactly how to do it. The media is obsessive about this stuff.
On December 15 2012 03:50 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: "Police officer who searched the building completely broke down when he entered the (kindergarden)classroom, upon seeing piles of kids..." this is heartbreaking
I thought that these were happening so frequently that I was actually somehow getting desensitized to them, but this is just horrible, pretty close to my home as well. Incredibly sad.
On December 15 2012 03:52 jalstar wrote: other countries have guns too, these shootings are an "only in america" thing, people want their 15 minutes of fame here...
Here in finland we have very strict gun control laws, yet we have had 2 school shooting massacres during the past 5 years.
If we compare our population, USA would need to have 120 school shooting for it to be equal.
The media have 2 options... They can either cover the event, and give it attention, or they can ignore it, and look like they don't give a fuck. It's hard to blame the media for giving this attention when we're only finding out about it because of the existence of media.
I'm on the verge of tears right now. My daughter is three, and will be starting school in a year or so. This could happen anywhere. It's disturbing and terrifying. Who could be that sick? And what pisses me off the most is the bastard killed himself. We'll never know why he did it.
On December 15 2012 03:58 CabelD wrote: Truly inhuman. I can't even imagine what those parents are going through.
Man, didn't even really think about that, it's so unreal.. You bring your kid to school in the morning, only to find out something like this happened to the most innocent people of our society ;/. It's so crazy
So will someone now start doing something in the US to make it harder for questionable people if terrorists or mentally ill or whatever people to get guns ?
I doubt it because the US gunlobby seems incredbly strong but there's a shooting now every few weeks in the US it seems and something needs to be done soon...
Edit: just read the modmessage. I'm not making fun of anything or whatever. THis is a tragedy but something similar happens every few weeks now and nobody does anything about it. Ban me if you like but it's getting disturbing.
And other bunch of families wrecked for the rest of their life... Any (public) person still defending gun laws or denying the correlation between them and incidents like this should be ashamed. I hope obama shows he has balls right and and launches a enormous effort to totally ban firearms for any citizen over there
I have to wonder if the motivation was possibly a fear of " the end of the world " that the media has been hyping up and people have been talking about online for the past 6 years. It would be unbelievably stupid but not unrealistic to think someone would want to go out before it happened and get some media attention along with it. If we see more things like this in the next week it might end up making sense.
Of course we'll never know since he killed himself, It's just something I was thinking about. I'm most likely wrong and he's just an insane person who decided this was the time to do it.
Apparently there was a man with a knife at a chinese school yesterday. 22 wounded. So yeah, guns don't kill people, people do. Now look at the 2 events of the past two days. One has 27 deaths. The other has 22 wounded. Big fucking difference. Fuck guns. Fuck people who defend guns.
[Updated at 1:51 p.m. ET] We have just learned that the suspected shooter is 20-years-old, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation tells CNN’s Susan Candiotti.
From CNN.com. Incredible that someone so close in age to me (I'm 22, and most of the people who seem to do these shootings are either teenagers in high school or grown, middle-aged men) really lands the idea of "it could happen anywhere" home. As if the pictures of crying children weren't enough. I'm seriously crying over here.
On December 15 2012 03:59 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: There is another body in the suspected shooters' mothers house.
s-serial killer?
Hard to say "serial killer" when a person goes on a murderous rampage.
Serial killers tend to space out their acts of murder and follow a specific MO or theme. A mass murderer operates differently, killing indiscriminately and essentially shooting everything that moves until they're out of targets or out of room. It seems as if the shooter was more the suicidal mass murderer type.
On December 15 2012 04:03 `phobiA wrote: This kind of shit depresses me. Kids should never have to be scared of going to school... now they have reason to.
This seriously. Not only are (27? 30?) kids dead but the rest of the kids are probably going to be incredibly scared about going to school from now on.
On December 15 2012 03:54 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Annnnnd I heard rumors that the shooters are Muslims who shouted "Allah Akbar"... go figure
kind of the like rumours surrounding the sikh shooting or the norway shooting, right? stop acting like a cow moving in a herd and verify your facts. Chances are your false rumour was created by people like you.... go figure.
On December 15 2012 03:59 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: There is another body in the suspected shooters' mothers house.
s-serial killer?
Mass murderer- many victims, one location, duration of minutes or hours. Spree killer- many victims, multiple locations, duration of hours or days without a "cooling off" period Serial killer- many victims, multiple locations, duration of weeks, months or years
So uhm, what's with the ban streak on page 8 for everybody mentioning gun control except for the mod guy who also does it? I mean it's fine to set rules (though I do not agree with shutting down a relevant discussion like that but alas), but then be consistent in enforcing them.
You should put yourself in the parents shoes before calling them disgusting. They're traumatized and being preyed on by professional vultures while they are still in shock.
Or sit in your computer chair and criticize someone having one of the most stressful days of their lives with your internet moral superiority.
On December 15 2012 04:10 dani` wrote: So uhm, what's with the ban streak on page 8 for everybody mentioning gun control except for the mod guy who also does it? I mean it's fine to set rules (though I do not agree with shutting down a relevant discussion like that but alas), but then be consistent in enforcing them.
There's a whole thread for gun control debate separate from this one for that purpose
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
Yes. They cannot interview the children without the parents consent.
So the parents are the disgusting people
I'd say both the press and the parents clamoring to get themselves or their kids in front of the cameras. They should just take their children home and be thankful they're not burying them.
On December 15 2012 04:10 dani` wrote: So uhm, what's with the ban streak on page 8 for everybody mentioning gun control except for the mod guy who also does it? I mean it's fine to set rules (though I do not agree with shutting down a relevant discussion like that but alas), but then be consistent in enforcing them.
There's a whole thread for gun control debate separate from this one for that purpose
That was not my point, it was the inconsistency. But never mind I got warned for mentioning it so I guess I'll just shut up.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
Being able to talk about it is one thing, being made to talk about it on national TV hours after seeing your friends die is another.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
Dude, there is no reason you should have your kindergartner talking to the media.
Every time something like this happens I ask myself what I could've done to help prevent it. I live quite a few miles away but I can't help but feel partly responsible every single time.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
Dude, there is no reason you should have your kindergartner talking to the media.
Not to mention, some news anchor asking questions isn't exactly a trained child counselor or a PTSD specialist. Recovery starts for these children when they get home, away from the chaos, away from the guns and cameras.
On December 15 2012 03:38 Ryps wrote: Whats with schools in America, how do kids even get guns so easily.
The article clearly states it wasn't a kid shooting. Did you read anything past the title in your blind rage to demonize america.
I did read it but I must have skipped the part which said it was an adult, I just assumed as in past school shootings that there was a student involved. Why would you assume I have rage against Americans ? it's just that these kinds of shootings happened in the past.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
Being able to talk about it is one thing, being made to talk about it on national TV hours after seeing your friends die is another.
On December 15 2012 04:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Why is the Press interviewing the children, I mean really.
They're pretty disgusting to talk to the children, but you have to guess the parents are the ones giving consent for the interviews.
As hard as it might be, getting the children to talk about it is the first step for them to accept what has happened. Not many people are cursed with having to witness such brutality at a young age. Being able to talk about what has happened is a step forward.
Dude, there is no reason you should have your kindergartner talking to the media.
As long as the media is respectful to the child, I have no problems with it. I can only imagine they would be out of human dignity.
God, stop with the gun control arguments please. France and Norway had shootings and there's much stricter gun control laws there. Fact of the matter a bigger country will have more tragedies like this, stop arguing and support the people who lost loved ones today.
I do hope this motherfucker did not play video games at least. Dont need more idiots trying to pin the blame on games.
I'd say most people have played a game at some point, so not much chance of that. With any luck, the idiots pinning blame will be seen as just that - idiots.
Amazing how normal most criminals turn out to be, eh?
On December 15 2012 04:29 decado90 wrote: Ughhh, and again the identify the gunman...
We can expect to see more and more of these as long as they continue to glorify the shooter more than the victims.
That's because victims aren't interesting. Something was done to them, but they didn't do anything. Criminals are interesting because they are freaks and as such they make a good freak show, plus they /did/ something of note, no matter how horrible it is.
People keep ranting about the media putting too much emphasis on the perp but, in the end, the public cares about the motive of the crime and who would do such a thing more than about exactly who the victims are.
I am not really sure if this is him but here is his facebook: KwarK: edited it out because this just becomes crazy witch hunt bullshit, leave the policework to the police.
Amazing how normal most criminals turn out to be, eh?
apparently thats pretty normal. the more crazy they are, the easier they can act normally. if youre a little crazy you show it and cant hide it, if you are as mentally fucked as to go do something like this, you can easily put up a new personna and live a normal life (for the most part)
Amazing how normal most criminals turn out to be, eh?
Yeah, it usually is pretty amazing. You'd think someone who had the capacity to intentionally murder school children would show more signs of being fucking crazy. Or maybe this video was before something broke in their brain. Who knows...
On December 15 2012 04:22 Odoakar wrote: Here's hoping that world indeed ends in few days.
Human race just doesn't deserve to be on this planet.
I dislike when people paint the entirety of humanity with the same brush because of the actions of an extremely small and sick minority. You'd think recovery would begin with people wanting to come together after a tragedy like this, but instead, people are more willing to act as if the rest of humanity is tainted by this man's actions. I'm certainly prioritizing caring about my family and friends today rather than wallowing in disgust of people who have done nothing wrong.
I don't mean to really attack you personally by the way...All I've seen on Facebook for the past few hours has been stuff like, "humanity is going down the drain!" and it's starting to irk me...
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
User was temp banned for this post.
Temp ban on this eh? Interesting. For martyrdom?
I'm pretty sure the NRA are obligated to comment on this. A Glock 911 and a Sig Sauer are not used for hunting animals. They're used to kill people, in this case, children. Pretty sure registering to an NRA affiliated bank can make you eligible for a free handgun. Northern States, too? I'm Canadian, so I don't know too much about gun control in the States.
In any case... this story further deteriorates my faith in mankind.
No more fish in 40 years. Worldwide cancer epidemic Iran going nuclear/ imminent proliferation.... People killing each other ARAGH!
I do hope this motherfucker did not play video games at least. Dont need more idiots trying to pin the blame on games.
20-something year old... Don't hope too hard, you may be disappointed; there's a pretty good chance that if the shooter could afford a glock and a sig sauer, he could afford to play video games.
I do hope this motherfucker did not play video games at least. Dont need more idiots trying to pin the blame on games.
20-something year old... Don't hope too hard, you may be disappointed; there's a pretty good chance that if the shooter could afford a glock and a sig sauer, he could afford to play video games.
The FB someone linked to earlier says he likes Mass Effect. Should be a good week for gamers.
a terrible tragedy. personally, each passing day feels safer than the last but we cannot forget that such horrible things are happening all the time.
i think there's a lot to be said about not focusing on the shooter's identity and what he deserves, even if he is already dead. if you are trying to figure out the wiring in his head or the demons possessing him at the time or even an event that may have caused him to snap, all of this is time and energy spent on something we can't control. the only thing it accomplishes is gaining closure, and in that regard i think too many people will be disappointed with the answers they get.
It seems to me like we're slowly falling apart and horrible things like this are where it really shows. We're scarred already but we keep on inflicting new wounds every day. Some are just more obvious than others. I can never understand how someone could waste lives like this.
On December 15 2012 04:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: It seems to me like we're slowly falling apart and horrible things like this are where it really shows. We're scarred already but we keep on inflicting new wounds every day. Some are just more obvious than others. I can never understand how someone could waste lives like this.
To be fair, human society is more peaceful now than at pretty much any other time in history. It's not like things are really getting worse. It's just that now whenever anything happens anywhere we hear about it.
saddest thing is the intense media coverage encouraging more people to commit horrible crimes as they know they will send waves of anger and sadness at everyone across the world if they do so.
On December 15 2012 04:35 Fischbacher wrote: Warning: only linking the pic because it showed up when Googling Ryan Lanza, there is no political message behind it. + Show Spoiler +
Real political add for Sen. Andrew Lanza from NY. A bit of an unfortunate coincidence.
On December 15 2012 04:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: It seems to me like we're slowly falling apart and horrible things like this are where it really shows. We're scarred already but we keep on inflicting new wounds every day. Some are just more obvious than others. I can never understand how someone could waste lives like this.
To be fair, human society is more peaceful now than at pretty much any other time in history. It's not like things are really getting worse. It's just that now whenever anything happens anywhere we hear about it.
We might be more peaceful on the outside but I don't think we were ever as insane as we are now. Of course that's just the impression I've always had so take it as what it is.
Usually I react pretty calm to such news but the fact that this happened at an elementary schoold makes me physically sick. I can't imagine how the children and their families must feel.
On December 15 2012 04:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: It seems to me like we're slowly falling apart and horrible things like this are where it really shows. We're scarred already but we keep on inflicting new wounds every day. Some are just more obvious than others. I can never understand how someone could waste lives like this.
To be fair, human society is more peaceful now than at pretty much any other time in history. It's not like things are really getting worse. It's just that now whenever anything happens anywhere we hear about it.
We might be more peaceful on the outside but I don't think we were ever as insane as we are now. Of course that's just the impression I've always had so take it as what it is.
Maybe its because humans suppress a lot now a days and others are placed on drugs that fuck with brain chemistry.
On December 15 2012 04:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: It seems to me like we're slowly falling apart and horrible things like this are where it really shows. We're scarred already but we keep on inflicting new wounds every day. Some are just more obvious than others. I can never understand how someone could waste lives like this.
To be fair, human society is more peaceful now than at pretty much any other time in history. It's not like things are really getting worse. It's just that now whenever anything happens anywhere we hear about it.
We might be more peaceful on the outside but I don't think we were ever as insane as we are now. Of course that's just the impression I've always had so take it as what it is.
Attention makes things seem worse than they are. We only seem to get the bad news.
On December 15 2012 04:35 Fischbacher wrote: Warning: only linking the pic because it showed up when Googling Ryan Lanza, there is no political message behind it. + Show Spoiler +
Real political add for Sen. Andrew Lanza from NY. A bit of an unfortunate coincidence.
what was the point of this post?
I think he saw all the retarded posts in this thread and thought, "I can do better."
T_T this is horrible. Reminds me of the Olso bombings. Hearts go out to all the families and friends that lost a loved one. These kind of event are happening way to often nowdays, waaay too often.
"I've killed my father, I've killed my mother, and now, with my life in the shitter and nothing to lose... What do I do with the rest of these bullets??"
If the shooter's mother was the only intended target after his father, why bring two guns and a bullet-proof vest? Those are premeditated actions that point to the shooter's intention being to massacre as many people as possible and survive other people's attempts to end his life to prolong the massacre until he finally decides to end his own life.
Trying to understand this shooter's mentality is pointless, IMO.
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
-edited--
Any actual confirmation of that?
that could just as easily be any other "Ryan Lanza"'s twitter, people needlessly spreading that around could easily make the poor dudes situation even worse. EDIT: Ryan Lanza@Ryan__Lanza
so aperently im getting spammed bc someone with the same name as me killed some ppl... wtf?
Seriously why the fuck are people posting these without any fact checking/legit sources? that could be anyones day you ruin, and im sure the hate-filled messages he's reading right now wont be helping him get over his ex.
Its a horrible tragedy, thoughts are with the families, but also witht he children who lost friends & classmates today, no lesson is harder to learn than that of mortality.
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
Wow that's fucking scary that news outlets are reporting the ID of... someone who didn't do it. I'd be scared as fuck if I was that guy being falsely accused. Hope he got some good locks and shit on his doors.
On December 15 2012 04:54 bonifaceviii wrote: Fuck people, DON'T TRUST ANYTHING THE NEWS VULTURES ARE SAYING. THEY ARE NOT FACT CHECKING ANYTHING.
Or is it just possible that more than 1 person could have the same name? There are 300 million of you guys
The twitter is him, no doubt. His twitter history speaks for itself.
Edit: Unless he and friends were hacked...what an insane coincidence... a different Ryan Lanza making Tweets about suicide and tweeting 2 weeks before the inicident how he would love if the world would end in 2 weeks...
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
Would be insanely stupid if ABC, Reuters, CBS and whatnot would release a name of a shooter, who in fact wasn't.
Which is why you shouldn't go internet detectiving up people's facebooks and twitter accounts.
If you're someone working for the media who has no idea about anything (other than how to maximize profit from this kind of stories, of course) then yes, "internet detectiving" is a terrible, terrible idea.
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
I was pretty sure that facebook account wasn't the shooter when I looked at it lol... Anyway, if the media got the name wrong, what a major fuck up. There would need to be some serious punishments and reforms dished out for that.
On December 15 2012 05:00 Shellshock1122 wrote: Wait what happened? The media put this guy's picture up and said he was the killer or something? or was the killer not Ryan Lanza at all?
Sounds like the picture is from someone else's facebook, while the twitter is legit? Perhaps the real Ryan Lanza didn't look enough like a maniac?
the twitter everyone has been linking around just posted this "so aperently im getting spammed bc someone with the same name as me killed some ppl... wtf?"
If it's true what the psychologists say that giving attention to these events only encourages them, then shouldn't this thread also be closed? Are we being part of the problem right now?
On December 15 2012 05:03 L3g3nd_ wrote: the twitter everyone has been linking around just posted this "so aperently im getting spammed bc someone with the same name as me killed some ppl... wtf?"
seriously the witch hunts are ridiculous.
God damn the mob mentality; what part of "the shooter killed himself" do people not understand?! This is horrific enough, leave this kid ALONE!!
On December 15 2012 04:51 L0L wrote: Here's the guys twitter. Check it out, pretty depressing. Looks like his girlfriend dumped him and he developed depression...
Sorry if it's a repost.
kwark: no twitters either
So many pictures and twitter/facebook links going around..
On December 15 2012 05:04 tomatriedes wrote: If it's true what the psychologists say that giving attention to these events only encourages them, then shouldn't this thread also be closed? Are we being part of the problem right now?
Technically yes, but I doubt a thread of a bit over a dozen pages on some internet gaming forum is relevant in the grand scheme of things compared to ... the massive media outlets? Media outlets which are also spreading misinformation and causing witch hunts on the internet against other people with the name Ryan Lanza.
so things arent adding up in all the facts of this story to me... if he is 20 and had a kid attending school there he would have fathered him at 15 or earlier. He came into a school with 4 handguns and a bulletproof vest and just execution style killed children. read accounts of serial killers and phsycopaths that kill children and see how even for them it is a hard undertaking. This dude just goes in and rapid fires 18 kids, it sounds like someone on a combat cocktail. You would be shocked to learn the lengths those in charge would go to in order to steer public opinion
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
America deserves the scorn it gets. It really does. We're a country of gun-saturation and mass-murder of schoolchildren. Next time we go to invade some "evildoers", let's check when the last time one of their elementary schools was ravaged like this school in Connecticut was. This is a national shame, that we continue to even debate the merit of gun-ownership while we proliferate the world's deadliest weapons throughout our country. Ban them, heavily, now. Take them away. You can have your freedom to bear arms when those children have the freedom to go to school without feeling absolute terror, which is never.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
Or, better yet:
Is it that hard for people to realize that if someone is dead, spamming their internet public profiles accomplishes NOTHING AT ALL, other than giving them the attention they craved in the first place?
On December 15 2012 05:10 Zelniq wrote: wtf nbc and other media are interviewing the kids? ..that's horrible god damnit
Nothing will get in the way of crony sensationalist news reporting, even if it involves mentally and emotionally scarring people for life and possibly propagating a culture that provides the basis for sensationalist violence.
On December 15 2012 05:04 tomatriedes wrote: If it's true what the psychologists say that giving attention to these events only encourages them, then shouldn't this thread also be closed? Are we being part of the problem right now?
Firstly, I apologise if this isn't appropriate to put here (if it isn't then I will glady edit it out) but to answer this question; yes that is what psychologists say, but they don't say to ignore the issue entirely, the media shouldn't focus on the killer but on the victims, ie not name the killer or show photos or anything like that, but make it clear how it hurts people (although putting a camera in front of someone so soon afterwards is insensitive itself).
On December 15 2012 05:08 izmatic wrote: so things arent adding up in all the facts of this story to me... if he is 20 and had a kid attending school there he would have fathered him at 15 or earlier. He came into a school with 4 handguns and a bulletproof vest and just execution style killed children. read accounts of serial killers and phsycopaths that kill children and see how even for them it is a hard undertaking. This dude just goes in and rapid fires 18 kids, it sounds like someone on a combat cocktail. You would be shocked to learn the lengths those in charge would go to in order to steer public opinion
He was 24 or so, apparently. You can remove your tin foil hat now, the man isn't out to get you.
From the development of this, it sounds like this was the stop of something like the extermination of his entire family? This is absolutely insane.
On December 15 2012 05:12 Cainam wrote: If that is the wrong kid getting his face shown all across the country on news stations I hope he sues the ever loving shit out of them
I can already imagine the lawyers lining up at his doorstep.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
I really don't understand the difference between killing a bunch of kindergartners or a bunch or movie-goers, or a bunch of high-shool kids, or a bunch of university students. It's always abhorrent and inexplicable when innocent people get killed. Is it really that much easier to justify going to a bingo-hall and mowing down a bunch of elderly people? We can't explain this guy, or anybody like him without going to that place ourselves.
On December 15 2012 05:11 airtown wrote: Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone cared this much when 30 Afghans or Iraqis died from a suicide bombing?
Whether you believe me or not, I do.
yeah same.
although this is different, when its in your country or state its a lot more real, iraq is a war zone, while this doesnt make it any less sad, it is more expected.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
I really don't understand the difference between killing a bunch of kindergartners or a bunch or movie-goers, or a bunch of high-shool kids, or a bunch of university students. It's always abhorrent and inexplicable when innocent people get killed. Is it really that much easier to justify going to a bingo-hall and mowing down a bunch of elderly people? We can't explain this guy, or anybody like him without going to that place ourselves.
The difference is, usually when highschools or colleges get shot up it is by people who attend the school and have issues with specific people. Its horrible, unjustifiable, and wrong in every way, but the link is there. It is something to point at.
Shooting a young child is impossible to justify. Shooting 5-10 year olds that have done nothing is almost completely impossible to link, to justify for the average person. Because the deed is that much harder to understand, it is that much more evil, and worse. You are right, any death like this is horrible, but children(for most) are the hardest to accept the lost of.
Payam Toghyan @ROOT_TT1 @cnn fuck u for glorying these people, your industry is the main cause of all of this. im sure you guys are getting alot of hits tho, grats
pretty much sums up my thoughts on this matter, saddening news. my thoughts and condolences go out to all the families. our world would have been wonderful if we all shared these same ideals
On December 15 2012 05:11 airtown wrote: Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone cared this much when 30 Afghans or Iraqis died from a suicide bombing?
Whether you believe me or not, I do.
I'm not in control of how much time the media spends discussing specific events, nor do I differentiate between innocent victims. I can't sympathize with a suicide bomber any more than I can with a mass murderer who shoots up a school, therefore my "care" is equal in regards to the victims of either scenario.
On December 15 2012 05:11 airtown wrote: Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone cared this much when 30 Afghans or Iraqis died from a suicide bombing?
That is not what we are talking about. When that happens, we can talk about it and care about it. Let's talk about what's happening NOW.
5500 children die in Africa everyday. so 22 every 6 minutes. Let's talk.
If you want to make a thread about it, that's great, but this isn't the place for it. I hate it when people try to diminish what happens to us by comparing us to other countries; it really makes me insane!!
I'm sorry, but this hits really close to home for me considering it's in my state and not too far away. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about it with this being the case, but seriously, can we not get sidetracked?
On December 15 2012 05:11 airtown wrote: Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone cared this much when 30 Afghans or Iraqis died from a suicide bombing?
Whether you believe me or not, I do.
I'm not in control of how much time the media spends discussing specific events, nor do I differentiate between innocent victims. I can't sympathize with a suicide bomber any more than I can with a mass murderer who shoots up a school, therefore my "care" is equal in regards to the victims of either scenario.
I don't think about it this rationally. These are wasted lives. That's all that really matters to me.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
I really don't understand the difference between killing a bunch of kindergartners or a bunch or movie-goers, or a bunch of high-shool kids, or a bunch of university students. It's always abhorrent and inexplicable when innocent people get killed. Is it really that much easier to justify going to a bingo-hall and mowing down a bunch of elderly people? We can't explain this guy, or anybody like him without going to that place ourselves.
The difference is, usually when highschools or colleges get shot up it is by people who attend the school and have issues with specific people. Its horrible, unjustifiable, and wrong in every way, but the link is there. It is something to point at.
Shooting a young child is impossible to justify. Shooting 5-10 year olds that have done nothing is almost completely impossible to link, to justify for the average person. Because the deed is that much harder to understand, it is that much more evil, and worse. You are right, any death like this is horrible, but children(for most) are the hardest to accept the lost of.
Dude. It's not impossible to justify. Just look at all the outrage. Some angry and suicidal people would love to have a stab at being globally known and famous. So you can thank the rabid media outlets for making it such a powerful thing to do.
I'm really sorry for saying that as I do sympathize with the families affected by the tragedy. But the media coverage is a tragedy of itself that surely will lead to more sensless murders.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
I really don't understand the difference between killing a bunch of kindergartners or a bunch or movie-goers, or a bunch of high-shool kids, or a bunch of university students. It's always abhorrent and inexplicable when innocent people get killed. Is it really that much easier to justify going to a bingo-hall and mowing down a bunch of elderly people? We can't explain this guy, or anybody like him without going to that place ourselves.
The difference is, usually when highschools or colleges get shot up it is by people who attend the school and have issues with specific people. Its horrible, unjustifiable, and wrong in every way, but the link is there. It is something to point at.
Shooting a young child is impossible to justify. Shooting 5-10 year olds that have done nothing is almost completely impossible to link, to justify for the average person. Because the deed is that much harder to understand, it is that much more evil, and worse. You are right, any death like this is horrible, but children(for most) are the hardest to accept the lost of.
It's the same. The shooter went there to kill his mother. He had a target, at a familiar place. If the family has been in that town long enough, who's to say the shooter wasn't an alumnus of that school? His mother taught there...
To me, there is no difference. I'm not saddened any more or less by the specifics of the victims.
I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
Good speach from Obama. Even though words wont heal those wounds they atleast may bring some comfort and remind others how easily the ones you love can be taken from you.
is it that hard for people to realize that there are many people with the same name?
as for the shooting...who would shoot kids in a kindergarten class? must have a serious mental illness and be a psychopath. and there were 2 of them at least.. this has got to be one of the worst tragedies to ever happen on US soil
I really don't understand the difference between killing a bunch of kindergartners or a bunch or movie-goers, or a bunch of high-shool kids, or a bunch of university students. It's always abhorrent and inexplicable when innocent people get killed. Is it really that much easier to justify going to a bingo-hall and mowing down a bunch of elderly people? We can't explain this guy, or anybody like him without going to that place ourselves.
The difference is, usually when highschools or colleges get shot up it is by people who attend the school and have issues with specific people. Its horrible, unjustifiable, and wrong in every way, but the link is there. It is something to point at.
Shooting a young child is impossible to justify. Shooting 5-10 year olds that have done nothing is almost completely impossible to link, to justify for the average person. Because the deed is that much harder to understand, it is that much more evil, and worse. You are right, any death like this is horrible, but children(for most) are the hardest to accept the lost of.
It's the same. The shooter went there to kill his mother. He had a target, at a familiar place. If the family has been in that town long enough, who's to say the shooter wasn't an alumnus of that school? His mother taught there...
To me, there is no difference. I'm not saddened any more or less by the specifics of the victims.
You can tell when someone doesn't have kids or hasn't been around them much.
On December 15 2012 05:27 Cylluus wrote: Matthew Keys @TheMatthewKeys [Newtown school shooting] RT @FixAaron: CNN now says suspect's brother also found dead in Hoboken, NJ.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
Then please good sir, feel free to open up your very own thread right here in the General forum, where you may foster this discussion that you seem to be so very interested in.
As it stands though, this thread is not the place for that.
How old are these kids? It's seriously disgusting that they would make them do an interview after watching their friends or teachers be brutally killed first hand. Are the parents giving permission for the interviews? If they're doing it for 15 minutes of fame that's just sickening.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
So we should just ignore these innocent children who died needlessly? Get out. Just get out.
As a father of someone in Junior Kindergarten, I can't express how devastating even the thought of this happening to my child is. I am really sad for those parents. =(
On December 15 2012 05:32 Dodgin wrote: How old are these kids? It's seriously disgusting that they would make them do an interview after watching their friends or teachers be brutally killed first hand. Are the parents giving permission for the interviews? If they're doing it for 15 minutes of fame that's just sickening.
I would think the parents would have to give permission since they are minors. makes it even sadder
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
As a father as well of a child getting ready for Kindergarten, I as well, can not even put into words how terrible I feel for the families. This type of stuff is overwhelming sometimes. The second I even try to picture my son even being at this school for this, let alone being one of the victims is a thought I can't even bare. This truly is devastating.
Sad, but such is the world. Humans are too unique and unpredictable, there will always be odd cases of mentally disturbed people doing things like this. It's not the result of some trend or cultural downfall, is a single deranged individual given the power to easily kill many by modern weapons (I'm not talking about the firearm debate, please don't ban me).
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
That is neither here nor there. I don't want to be controversial and start an argument because that's not what the thread is for. But what you're saying is simply not appropriate. The thread is here so that people can express their sadness and gather information about what exactly happened.
Talking about how "other worse things happen", Americans are ignorant.. is something that you should NOT do. If you believe that this topic is unimportant compared to what happens in Africa, then just don't post in it. I don't care about K-pop at all, do you see me going in the thread and talking about how much better progressive rock is? No.. this is the same thing except that the topic is much more serious. Much more serious.
People don't need an analysis depicting America's cultural problems in this thread. So can it, please.
Thoughts to the victims' families. What happened here is a true tragedy. I hope they do catch the killer and do figure out why he did it, if only to help make sure it doesn't happen again.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
I don't really understand what reform you're talking about. Do you mean a reformation of the mindset that only mourns local tragedies? Should we just be in a constant state of mourning the deaths of strangers all over the world just because they happened? The world is sad. Reality is sad. Death is inevitable.
On December 15 2012 05:11 airtown wrote: Wouldn't it be amazing if everyone cared this much when 30 Afghans or Iraqis died from a suicide bombing?
Better yet, double tapping drone bombings which is considered a war crime by the UN and nobody has said anything about it. Double tapping drone bombing(for people who don't know) is basically shooting one drone bomb which only kills 1-3 people, then when neighbors hear the screams they rush to help, so people tend to crowd around, then another bomb kills all the rescuers resulting in 20+ deaths generally.
This is why incidents like this don't surprise me much as sad as they are. Its kind of hard to prevent incidents like this because it takes generations to instill decent moral behaviour in a population. Sadly good morals are going out the window the last 20-30 years.
Fucking horrible...not just for the school and everyone who died but everyone who survived it. As if going through that isn't traumatizing enough, you have these scumbag media fucks getting in these kids faces about it.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
On December 15 2012 05:42 IronManSC wrote: fucking ads in the middle of a speech. This is a tragedy why can't the ad company cut some slack?
Of course they're going to run ads while everyone with a TV or internet connection is watching, something like this happening increases their viewership for the day/next couple of days by a huge amount.
On December 15 2012 05:44 Grettin wrote: Fox News saying that Ryan Lanza is arrested and his BROTHER "Adam", is the shooter? Anyone listening Fox that can confirm?
That's what they said, that the 20 yr old was the shooter, the 24 year old was in custody. (they didn't say why he was, possibly for his own protection (since the media named him the shooter) or to question him.)
Police have confirmed: 20 children dead. 6 Adults dead. One injured. Including the shooter makes 27 dead. Also, the shooting only took place in one section of the school, possibly one or two rooms.
Terrible news, feel awful for the families of all involved. Obama's speech was pretty raw - he's sharing that same feeling of powerlessness about the situation. Family member or friend, POTUS or the local cop on the street everyone is wishing they could change this.
On December 15 2012 05:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: Police have confirmed: 20 children dead. 6 Adults dead. One injured. Including the shooter makes 27 dead. Also, the shooting only took place in one section of the school, possibly one or two rooms.
That's only at the school, there were other scenes with fatalities as well.
On December 15 2012 05:46 IronManSC wrote: Did the shooter kill himself?
The answer from the police at the press conference was that they did not know at this time, but the media is saying he did.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
On December 15 2012 03:27 amazingxkcd wrote: As if any gun control laws is going to stop bastards from illegally obtaining guns regardless.
This tires me to no end.. Come to ANY country in Scandinavia, and then you try - i mean REALLY(!) try, to get a simple handgun. I promise you this would not be an easy task at all. Banning guns doesn't mean that "you can obtain them just as easily illegally". Fucking morons. Laws and regulations are HEAVILY needed.
as terrible as this incident is, i hate that the media talks topics like this to death and the whole world is (or pretends to be) totally mad about this. If the exact same thing happened in Kenia, no1 would give a damn shit about it. oh, i guess things like that happen there every week. sometimes, i just hate society for how naive they are.
On December 15 2012 03:27 amazingxkcd wrote: As if any gun control laws is going to stop bastards from illegally obtaining guns regardless.
This tires me to no end.. Come to ANY country in Scandinavia, and then you try - i mean REALLY(!) try, to get a simple handgun. I promise you this would not be an easy task at all. Banning guns doesn't mean that "you can obtain them just as easily illegally". Fucking morons. Laws and regulations are HEAVILY needed.
They won't work the same way in the US because we have had them for so long. But anyways stop replying to older posts as gun control stuff should be kept out of this thread and go to the gun control thread, which is now active again.
On topic I cannot believe the screw ups by the media when they are reporting on such a horrible situation. I know they want news asap to get it out first but seriously does it actually matter if you take that extra time to GET IT RIGHT? No one cares "who has it first" anymore. People are constantly switching back between news sources anyway so STOP BEING LAZY.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Does Walmart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
An automatic weapon fires whatever cartridge it is chambered for. There are handguns that fire 9mm and fully automatic weapons that fire 9mm.
Getting a legal automatic weapon is extremely expensive, but you can order whatever ammo off the internet, which is usually a good idea because bulk pricing is pretty good.
On December 15 2012 03:16 J_Slim wrote:
On December 15 2012 03:14 McBengt wrote:
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Do Wal-Mart actually sell ammunition for fully automatic machine guns? Or is that just some strange rumour I heard?
Probably. I work at a sporting goods store, and we sell any type of ammo you could want. Ironic though that we don't sell hand guns. Just shot guns and rifles, including the fully automatic rifles that should *only* be in the hands of a soldier on a warfield.
Your sporting goods store does not sell automatic rifles.
I see. Not too familiar with firearms I'm afraid. Is it common for people to be armed with heavier weapons in the US, as in weapons typically used by the military?
Well, if by weapons used by the military you mean rifles capable of burst fire or automatic then it is extremely rare. Basically, fully automatic weaponry used to be legal in the US until it was banned, but all the fully automatic rifles that were registered before the ban got grandfathered in, meaning there is a pretty finite amount of them floating around, meaning they go for a hell of a lot.
If you mean just a rifle that LOOKS like their military counterparts then it's pretty common. I can buy a well made AR-15 for about $650 off the internet, but that weapon is not capable of anything but single-shot (semi-automatic) unless I make (very, very illegal) modifications to it.
On December 15 2012 05:49 KalWarkov wrote: as terrible as this incident is, i hate that the media talks topics like this to death and the whole world is (or pretends to be) totally mad about this. If the exact same thing happened in Kenia, no1 would give a damn shit about it. oh, i guess things like that happen there every week. sometimes, i just hate society for how naive they are.
If being naive means that I need to care about none of the tragedies instead of some of them, then I'd rather be naive. What's the point of saying, "since you don't care about this thing happening over here, you shouldn't care about that thing over there"? Caring about some things is better than nothing.
On December 15 2012 03:27 amazingxkcd wrote: As if any gun control laws is going to stop bastards from illegally obtaining guns regardless.
This tires me to no end.. Come to ANY country in Scandinavia, and then you try - i mean REALLY(!) try, to get a simple handgun. I promise you this would not be an easy task at all. Banning guns doesn't mean that "you can obtain them just as easily illegally". Fucking morons. Laws and regulations are HEAVILY needed.
This really isn't the issue though sigh.
User was temp banned for the previous post, he must have edited it during the writing of the ban, I'll deal with it.
On December 15 2012 05:49 KalWarkov wrote: as terrible as this incident is, i hate that the media talks topics like this to death and the whole world is (or pretends to be) totally mad about this. If the exact same thing happened in Kenia, no1 would give a damn shit about it. oh, i guess things like that happen there every week. sometimes, i just hate society for how naive they are.
Feelings aren't really rational. You can't really control what affects you and what not, at least I can't. Sadly enough horrific news from other parts of the world have become somewhat of a "standard". We are at a point where we cannot take it anymore and just suppress those. This incident however we cannot flee of everyone knows some children at that age, knows their smiling, their laughter etc and subsequently can relate to this. And this happenend in a to us familiar environment so we can understand it naturally.
I really wish people would stop arguing the political side of this tragedy, at least for at least a day. Thoughts should be with the families and victims, immediately jumping to debates about gun control is pointless.
On December 15 2012 05:59 EmperorKira wrote: Such a tragedy. When 9/11 happened, the US said "never again", but when it comes to guns its just "here we go again". When will something be done?! Very few countries in the world have this problem. There's something wrong when a guy can carry 4 guns, walk into a school and kill a classroom.
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
So if human beings matter to you then why does it matter to you more when less human beings are dying than when more are dying? It leads me to assume that you think all human life isn't equal. Statistics will exist regardless, but when life is being taken, the more life that is being taken is obviously more tragic. Just a thought.
can we get the thread locked? at this rate half of the TL population won't be able to post for a couple weeks (i am not trying to argue mod decisions, it just seems like people can't help themselves)
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
So if human beings matter to you then why does it matter to you more when less human beings are dying than when more are dying? It leads me to assume that you think all human life isn't equal. Statistics will exist regardless, but when life is being taken, the more life that is being taken is obviously more tragic. Just a thought.
Human suffering matters whether it is one or a million people.
So apparently one way to help prevent some of these mass shootings, according to this forensic psychiatrist, is to stop giving it so much coverage, and specifically certain kinds of coverage from the media
go to 1m 40s, or youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&t=1m40s
On December 15 2012 06:05 Zelniq wrote: So apparently one way to help prevent some of these mass shootings, according to this forensic psychiatrist, is to stop giving it so much coverage, and specifically certain kinds of coverage from the media
I've seen the guy explaining the things not to do at the end of the video before, this guy is brilliant. I believe he did an interview with a mafia hitman called " the iceman " It's on youtube somewhere.
So how did this happen exactly? Some gunman just walked in and started killing people? What frightens me the most is how easy it is to commit crimes like these.. T.T
I have a friend from Sandy Hook who I presume went to this school. I texted him right after I heard and he said everyone he knew is safe but everyone is still in a state of shock. This is really too bad, the act of what appears to be a calculated lunatic.
On December 15 2012 03:52 jalstar wrote: other countries have guns too, these shootings are an "only in america" thing, people want their 15 minutes of fame here...
Here in finland we have very strict gun control laws, yet we have had 2 school shooting massacres during the past 5 years.
If we compare our population, USA would need to have 120 school shooting for it to be equal.
Compared to some states 2007-2012:
Finland 2 (5,421,827)
Washington 3 (6,830,038) Virginia 4 (8,096,604) Louisiana 2 (4,574,836) Tennessee 2 (6,403,353) Alabama 3 (4,802,740)
On December 15 2012 05:59 Erasme wrote: 18 children ? You must be really desperate to shoot children ..
I hate when media's doing that, there needs to be some regulations about this, obviously they don't give a dime about ethics.
Media got it wrong ? It's not 27deads with 18childs?
At the school: 20 deceased children, 6 deceased adult victims, 1 deceased shooter First crime scene (shooter's house): 1 deceased adult male (shooter's father).
On December 15 2012 05:27 jcroisdale wrote: I never understand these types of things, as people we will make this the biggest new story for days. Everyone will be commentating and expressing their sadness with the situation. While on the otherside kids are dying in far greater numbers everyday because of things like hunger and thirst. In the iraq war there have been over 100k documented civilian casualties. Could you imagine if 100k American civilians have died because of this war.
Its fine to show compassion and grief in this situations, but in reality it just show the ignorance of the American people,
Im am an American and wish nothing more then to have reform in this country.
This is close to some people. Some people actually give a fuck about what happened. Who are you to say what they should care about?
I hate this kind of attitude (his, not yours) - like Americans aren't allowed to be upset when anything happens to them, as if we, as if ANYONE, deserves this kind of thing.
It makes people into things. Another statistics, instead of seeing people as.. well.. human beings. People can relate to this tragedy, even I can relate to this without having children of my own.
So if human beings matter to you then why does it matter to you more when less human beings are dying than when more are dying? It leads me to assume that you think all human life isn't equal. Statistics will exist regardless, but when life is being taken, the more life that is being taken is obviously more tragic. Just a thought.
Some deaths will be more tragic to some people than others. That can't be helped. It can be a lot or even a little. Life is not black or white. Any death is still tragic. I don't think X deaths > Y so therefore X must be more tragic. When people starts to do that, it dehumanize them. People become numbers, things, or worse shooting objects.
In this situation, many people can relate. First of all, its IN MY COUNTRY. Second, many people here have seen faces of young innocent children.
Do people not see the header? Or are people not even bothering with reading previous pages, seeing all the temp bans. There is NO POINT in discussing gun control laws, how is that not yet clear after the countless threads of gun shooting...?
The media is going to go apeshit on this; the shooter practically made their jobs a whole lot easier for the next week or so. The Aurora shooting died down, at least on a national level, in less than two weeks - that's after the media bled it dry 'till it was no longer "interesting" and viewers were getting tired of reading the same thing over and over. Geeeeeeeeez
In front of a senior center next door to the school, a 20-year-old woman was with her 4-year-old sister, who was in the school at the time of the shooting. The older woman came to pick up her younger sister along with their mother. The girl had her arms and legs wrapped around her older sister. When a reporter asked the woman what the little girl knew of what had happened, the woman said, “Absolutely nothing, and we don’t plan to tell her anything.”
Adam Lanza 1. He Was 20 Years Old 2. His mom, Nancy Lanza was a Teacher and killed in the massacre. Adam Lanza apparently targeted his mom's kindergarten classroom. 3. His Father, Peter Lanza, Was Found Dead Today at a Newtown Home Registered to a Nancy J. Lanza 4. His Brother, Ryan Lanza, Was Questioned by Police 5. Ryan, Not Adam, Was First Widely Reported as the Killer 6. Adam May Have Been Carrying Ryan's ID 7. A Girlfriend is Missing — It's Unclear Whether It's Ryan's or Adam's 8. He Traveled to the School Today from New Jersey 9. He Dressed in All Black & Wore a Mask 10. He Wielded 3 Guns, Two Handguns and a .223 Caliber Rifle
Adam Lanza 1. He Was 20 Years Old 2. His mom, Nancy Lanza was a Teacher and killed in the massacre. Adam Lanza apparently targeted his mom's kindergarten classroom. 3. His Father, Peter Lanza, Was Found Dead Today at a Newtown Home Registered to a Nancy J. Lanza 4. His Brother, Ryan Lanza, Was Questioned by Police 5. Ryan, Not Adam, Was First Widely Reported as the Killer 6. Adam May Have Been Carrying Ryan's ID 7. A Girlfriend is Missing — It's Unclear Whether It's Ryan's or Adam's 8. He Traveled to the School Today from New Jersey 9. He Dressed in All Black & Wore a Mask 10. He Wielded 3 Guns, Two Handguns and a .223 Caliber Rifle
This is horrible, but it also sounds like the ryan (the shooter's brother right?) is gonna have a really fucked up life and will have to carry the burden of his brother's misdeeds and the entire family's funeral (which no one is going to help him with since they'll say his family doesn't deserve it or something fucked up like that).
Such a tragedy. I am sickened by both sides who are already using this to talk about gun regulation. Seriously. There is a time and place for that but at least wait till the fucking blood dries.
Just think about all the parents who won't be able to watch their babies open the presents they have under the tree =(
On December 15 2012 06:39 KimJongChill wrote: This is horrible, but it also sounds like the ryan (the shooter's brother right?) is gonna have a really fucked up life and will have to carry the burden of his brother's misdeeds and the entire family's funeral (which no one is going to help him with since they'll say his family doesn't deserve it or something fucked up like that).
You're kidding right?
Of course this kid will get help with his familys funeral lol. I have absolutely no clue why you think he wont get help.
On December 15 2012 06:40 Grettin wrote: Some guy on ABC saying that the shooter had Aspergers or some kind of OCD, "troubled child". Nothing really confirmed.
Reports say that Ryan, the brother who was mistakenly identified as the shooter, posted on FB that his developmentally disabled brother may have been the one to commit the crime. He has since deleted his FB profile.
The guy that shot Congresswoman Giffords in Tucson, AZ had a severe mental issue. He's been getting treatment for it since and the trial just recently happened. Ended in a plea deal iirc.
On December 15 2012 07:06 ECHOZs wrote: "We ask why there's violence in our schools, but we've systematically removed God from our schools." -Mike Huckabee
No words for the stupidity.
Idiots will exploit this for their own agendas no matter how fucking sad it is. Anders Brejvik was a Christian and he murdered a shit-ton of people, I wonder what he has to say about that.
Hell that retard guy who was super against video games who stated video games were responsible for a shooting before the gunner had even been identified.
On December 15 2012 07:06 ECHOZs wrote: "We ask why there's violence in our schools, but we've systematically removed God from our schools." -Mike Huckabee
No words for the stupidity.
I can't wait for when stupid shit like this stops coming out of the media. Hopefully while I'm still alive.
Edit Accidentally forgot a few critical words, durr.
Heartbreaking to think about Ryan's situation right now. First you get accused for being the murderer by media world wide with name and pictures everywhere, and then you get the information that it was actually your brother, and not did he only kill a class of 5-6 year olds and some adults, but also your fucking mom and dad and then himself.
1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
its called being a human. Usually humans have the ability to feel empathy for others' misfortunes. Look outside of yourself sometime.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
See, you're part of the problem. Be proud of yourself.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
I'm only guessing but the fact of the matter is that his occurred in an elementary school in a suburban town where crime is not exactly at the level of say Detroit. It has the tendency to hit people a little closer to home knowing that they have children in the exact same situation as those other parents had whom now have dead children. I'm not a parent but that would be my guess even though it will not happen to most people it induces a feeling of fear in them.
Put yourself in one of the victim's shoes and you'll understand.
I live in Connecticut. Generally the only things we have here are good college basketball teams, and outsiders coming in asking us how to spell/pronounce the states name.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Unfortunately America this will continue until your gun laws change.
The last mass murder due to guns in Australia was in 1996 where 35 people were killed and another 25 wounded. Since then gun laws in Australia were drastically changed and there are rarely to never any mass murders excluding those associated with organized crime, even those are typically 2-3 at the most.
It's certainly a sad thing that occurred but unfortunately this will not be the last time a gun massacre occurs in your country, and its very tragic.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
The " I'm going to homeschool my kids " is something I'm hearing a lot from my friends too after this, they are shocked to find out that it can happen anywhere in the country and school's are not safe havens for children. I don't blame them I would likely do the same thing.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 07:06 ECHOZs wrote: "We ask why there's violence in our schools, but we've systematically removed God from our schools." -Mike Huckabee
No words for the stupidity.
Mike Huckabee, that's the mousetrap-guy isn't it?
Talking of mental illness... At least he isn't shooting anyone.
On December 15 2012 07:25 LoLAdriankat wrote: It gives me a little hope and comfort to see a bunch of people gang up on a potential sociopath on the last page.
Getting angry at people is often a crucial social cue to inform someone that their behavior is undesired or wrong. It is useful for most people, but for true sociopaths it won't have much effect except perhaps to isolate further. One man's medicine is another's poison sometimes.
On December 15 2012 03:10 farvacola wrote: Don't worry, I expect the NRA and fellow gun folk will again loudly yell against anyone who even mentions the possibility that gun control laxity played a role in this amongst others acts of fatal violence. I do wonder how mainstay these sorts of shootings will have to become before public opinion starts to change. And before the requisite "You so stupid, how would taking away guns fix this?" pops up, it's not about "taking away guns", it's about making them more difficult to acquire, because the fact of the matter is that getting guns in the states is incredibly simple and far too easy. My thoughts go out to the families, this sucks.
Yes, but someone who is willing to go to the extreme of murdering 18 kids is also very willing to go to a far lesser extreme of obtaining a gun illegally or going through a longer process legally.
the guy didn't set out to fill a kill order or something. he wanted to do something extraordinary, violent, spiteful, etc. having ready access to guns enables this into action. (not a gun control argument, just saying that the mental probleml underlying the case is less about killing than about the guy himself)
looks like this sort of thing is increasing in frequency though. something has to give.
guns are whatever. you get crazy kids doing this stuff for self affirmation against the world. see that guy with the long suicide note.
On December 15 2012 07:26 AgentW wrote: Apparently the mother was killed in the home now. CNN and other media outlets looking really bad now.
Most of the stuff I've been watching or reading prefaces things with "sources say". Which seems fine to me, they are just reporting on what they've been told which may be inaccurate in the first place, or there was an error in communication between different levels of the reporting outlet going from source to journalist to editor back to journalist etc.
Really wish this sort of thing wasn't posted until everything had been cleared up, the brother of the shooters life has just been ruined even more thanks to the various media outlets and people contemplating a shooting will have all the evidence they need that they will be remembered.
I feel so sad for the families that are going to be spending the holidays without their kids. It's so sad to think that they might have had trips planned out and now they have to cancel everything and plan a funeral. Sad news indeed.
Obviously a terrible tragedy, and my sympathy goes to the families.
Was working at my former elementary school when I heard the news. Principal's even called my brother in to up security at the front desk. Even though there's likely nothing to worry about for us, we're taking it seriously, and I pray this doesn't happen again.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Are you fucking serious?
Arguably worse things are happening throughout the world. This (clearly horrible) event impacts the 'average American' more because the dead were children at an elementary school (a place thought 'safe'). Surprise plays a big factor in the reaction.
Most people who are jaded/cynical/unsurprised that there are crazies out there who want to go on murdering rampages are wise/socially aware enough to not comment about it.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
its called being a human. Usually humans have the ability to feel empathy for others' misfortunes. Look outside of yourself sometime.
He's talking about sensationalism of it, which is not what you are getting at. It's the spectacle, the grand speeches and all that. The same thing happened in China a few days ago, a mall shooting this past week, lots of dying everywhere in more grotesque ways than you can imagine, and it's all there for you to read up on. Humans have the ability to feel empathy for others but it's also true that you can be desensitized, at least to the point that you don't tear up or huddle with others when you don't have an actual connection to the events.
He does not need to be accused of being selfish and heartless to question the media and societal response to events like these. I would venture to say the 'sensationalism' is part of the reason why so many massacres are occurring... because the killers know at the very least the news will let everyone know about their lives and 'tragic' circumstances that led them to kill groups of people.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
So now they are talking about a hostage situation, the mother being dead at home and not at the school. Revealing false identities on live news repots etc.... media is fucking awful today.
On December 15 2012 07:46 Bub wrote: This soon before Christmas too. I feel really sorry for the parents and the presents they had in the closet...:-(
Btw. what the fuck is wigh the news changing stories. Fuck it I'm waiting until tomorrow
Yeah, I was just thinking about that too. The presents will already be planned out and bought, maybe even their favourite foods for Christmas day in the freezer. It's awful. There's no way they could have prepared for this either, every minute must be a fresh heartbreak.
Yea I agree with the Aulisemia guy.What exactly are we supposed to do here?Mourn the people who died? Didn't really give a damn about them when they were alive,certainly don't now,pretty sure you don't either.I wish it didn't happen to the familys but if you think feeling sorry for them now is going to change anything,just look at the circlejerk that happened after all the other shootings you'll see that this will just pass,everyone on the outside will forget and there will never be an answer. The best thing for America would be to stop treating these idiots like rockstars and agonizing children like screaming fangirls.Every single reporter that put a mic in their face should be shot on the spot. Worthless thread.
On December 15 2012 07:50 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: So now they are talking about a hostage situation, the mother being dead at home and not at the school. Revealing false identities on live news repots etc.... media is fucking awful today.
Just stop watching, don't give them the hits when they don't deserve it. Check on the facts tomorrow when they are found to be completely true.
On December 15 2012 07:46 Bub wrote: This soon before Christmas too. I feel really sorry for the parents and the presents they had in the closet...:-(
Btw. what the fuck is wigh the news changing stories. Fuck it I'm waiting until tomorrow
Yeah, I was just thinking about that too. The presents will already be planned out and bought, maybe even their favourite foods for Christmas day in the freezer. It's awful. There's no way they could have prepared for this either, every minute must be a fresh heartbreak.
Good thing that no matter what channel the tv is on they get to be reminded, with the same constant "sad" music which will pretty much haunt them for the rest of their lives. Frankly, it's disgusting that this sort of event is even displayed on the media. It's no bodies business but the people who were involved, and it does nothing but encourage future repetitions.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
It's the context that makes it sad. I understand your point, but you're being a little insensitive. These children weren't at "high risk" of being shot. Those 44,000 civilians were at high(er) risk. Not sure why you compared people born with HIV? Those people dying of hunger were at "high risk" of...dying of hunger.
So in the end, it's the context that makes it sadder than most news out there. Human conditioning (God induced or evolutionary induced or whatever you believe) also makes us react more to such unexpected events. In a war, people die - that's normal. What's not normal is for kids to be gunned down for apparently no reason.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
Most people don't weep when people in their own country die, and I'd go on to say that pretty much everybody in this thread felt almost nothing regarding the shooting.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
It's the context that makes it sad. I understand your point, but you're being a little insensitive. These children weren't at "high risk" of being shot. Those 44,000 civilians were at high(er) risk. Not sure why you compared people born with HIV? Those people dying of hunger were at "high risk" of...dying of hunger.
So in the end, it's the context that makes it sadder than most news out there. Human conditioning (God induced or evolutionary induced or whatever you believe) also makes us react more to such unexpected events. In a war, people die - that's normal. What's not normal is for kids to be gunned down for apparently no reason.
I would say that it's the context that makes people more sad about it.
It's foolish to ridicule those who feel sad, however - so long as they realize that it is not sociopathic to not be deeply impacted by this tragedy.
All of you are 100% correct of course. I really should be posting on an internet forum saying how awful this tragic event was, how I'm going to now pull my kids out of public schools to keep them safe and posting links to the person's facebook page and yelling at people about gun control and religion in schools.
You have to be a realist to get through life, you have to be realistic about what you are seeing and what the proper level of response is. "Bad" things happen to people every second of every day, it doesn't make it right or wrong, just or injust. It just is, that's how the universe works. It doesn't share your beliefs or morality system or even an altruistic level of empathy for those outside of one's Monkeysphere (Dunbar's number).
Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children? If the answer is no then I suggest that cherry picking is equal or perhaps a worse response than my perspective-based approach to dealing with it.
It was odd to see that so many news sources that were following this event were so comfortable with including gun control propaganda in there immediate coverage. Usually that comes later on in the coverage of an incident such as this and is much less emphasized.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.
I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.
I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.
People care about the lives of people removed from them insofar as they can make conversation about it.
On December 15 2012 08:03 Aulisemia wrote: All of you are 100% correct of course. I really should be posting on an internet forum saying how awful this tragic event was, how I'm going to now pull my kids out of public schools to keep them safe and posting links to the person's facebook page and yelling at people about gun control and religion in schools.
You have to be a realist to get through life, you have to be realistic about what you are seeing and what the proper level of response is. "Bad" things happen to people every second of every day, it doesn't make it right or wrong, just or injust. It just is, that's how the universe works. It doesn't share your beliefs or morality system or even an altruistic level of empathy for those outside of one's Monkeysphere (Dunbar's number).
Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children? If the answer is no then I suggest that cherry picking is equal or perhaps a worse response than my perspective-based approach to dealing with it.
But who are you to judge how people should react? As I said, it's the context. What you're arguing it along the lines of asking: "Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children?"
...when you cried when your Mother and Father (or whatever person you personally "love" a lot in this world) died after a drunk driver crashed into their vehicle. So is that "cherry picking" too?
On December 15 2012 08:03 Aulisemia wrote: All of you are 100% correct of course. I really should be posting on an internet forum saying how awful this tragic event was, how I'm going to now pull my kids out of public schools to keep them safe and posting links to the person's facebook page and yelling at people about gun control and religion in schools.
You have to be a realist to get through life, you have to be realistic about what you are seeing and what the proper level of response is. "Bad" things happen to people every second of every day, it doesn't make it right or wrong, just or injust. It just is, that's how the universe works. It doesn't share your beliefs or morality system or even an altruistic level of empathy for those outside of one's Monkeysphere (Dunbar's number).
Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children? If the answer is no then I suggest that cherry picking is equal or perhaps a worse response than my perspective-based approach to dealing with it.
But who are you to judge how people should react? As I said, it's the context. What you're arguing it along the lines of asking: "Did you react in a similar manner for the 120,000 or so civilians who were killed, murdered and tortured during the extent of the Iraq war? Did you cry and sob over the decades of molestation committed by Catholic priests on young children?"
...when you cried when your Mother and Father (or whatever person you personally "love" a lot in this world) died after a drunk driver crashed into their vehicle. So is that "cherry picking" too?
The death of someone you actually knew is so different from someone you've never heard about.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
It's the context that makes it sad. I understand your point, but you're being a little insensitive. These children weren't at "high risk" of being shot. Those 44,000 civilians were at high(er) risk. Not sure why you compared people born with HIV? Those people dying of hunger were at "high risk" of...dying of hunger.
So in the end, it's the context that makes it sadder than most news out there. Human conditioning (God induced or evolutionary induced or whatever you believe) also makes us react more to such unexpected events. In a war, people die - that's normal. What's not normal is for kids to be gunned down for apparently no reason.
I would say that it's the context that makes people more sad about it.
Exactly - I made exactly that point in my next paragraph of the same post you quoted.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think that coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equals showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that's it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should", funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy this way.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt "prove" anything about mental disorder (even if probably has some)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It's impossible to 'care' about everything bad that's happening in the world. People are selective about what they feel 'sad' about, and since this is a close-to-home situation, lost of people pick this to feel sad about.
And even then, feeling 'sad' about this is not even close to the sadness you would feel when something bad would happen to a close friend or relative. I feel a bit sad and angry at the thought of this news, but tomorrow I'll wake up and by Monday I'll probably have forgotten it ever happened until someone mentions it again. That is just the way it goes. If you genuinely felt sad about every bad thing that happens in the world, you would not be able to function. We have grades of sadness, the closer to home, the greater the sadness.
But this does not mean, as some people seem to imply, that we cannot wish the relatives strength, or express our thoughts about how sad this is. It is not hypocritical to be upset about this news but not about all the other people today that died a horrible death. It's simply not possible to be upset about all of it.
I've never heard of these people and I will never meet them and yet I can feel empathy for them.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
It's the context that makes it sad. I understand your point, but you're being a little insensitive. These children weren't at "high risk" of being shot. Those 44,000 civilians were at high(er) risk. Not sure why you compared people born with HIV? Those people dying of hunger were at "high risk" of...dying of hunger.
So in the end, it's the context that makes it sadder than most news out there. Human conditioning (God induced or evolutionary induced or whatever you believe) also makes us react more to such unexpected events. In a war, people die - that's normal. What's not normal is for kids to be gunned down for apparently no reason.
I would say that it's the context that makes people more sad about it.
Exactly - I made exactly that point in my next paragraph of the same post you quoted.
Even if we aren't disagreeing here, I'd prefer a phrasing where the subjectivity is clear - the relative sadness is not 'intrinsic'.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.
I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.
Your wrong. More than 100,000 people being killed for "the greater good" isnt comparable to 30 people dying. A life is a life is a life. I dont buy your argument that some lives are worth so much more than others. And the over crowding comment was sickening.
The sudden change of subject on the last few pages by several of you who are questioning people's feelings and somehow trying to invalidate those who are trying to express sadness or sympathy for the tragedy that happened today is really disturbing. Please leave your "higher than thou" discussion to another thread and let people express themselves as they see fit as a result of this tragedy. this is not a thread for emotionless debate about peoples motivation and it's really tacky for you to come on here and tell people they don't have a right to be saddened by this. Please go somewhere else where you can debate it to your hearts content but your lack of sympathy and common sense is disgusting.
Horrible thing for me to wake up and hear. I can't believe the gun control arguments I'm seeing all over my Facebook, can't it wait? My heart and soul hurts for these children, parents, and families. I hope they can find the strength to move forward.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
There is literally no point in arguing with someone who believes they should be weeping every time something tragic happens across the globe, most of the time they're either lying about the amount of sadness they experience, or completely miss other events which are tragic on a much grander scale.
Its not that most people weep every time people/children die. It pretty much is, to put it bluntly, how little people care about lives in 3rd world countries. It mostly has to do with the media and how most powerful media is in the hands of 1st world countries.
Incidents like the one that happened in the USA today, happen on an almost daily basis by the USA themselves in places such as Pakistan and Afghanistan through drones strikes/double tap. Incidents like the one that happened today are sadly mostly unpreventable, the ones happening on a daily basis by the USA are.
I actually think people do "care" about lives in 3rd world countries. "Care" as in find it "sad" or "tragic". But human perception of "sadness" and "tragedy" doesn't necessarily mean they will go out help those in need or become better people.
I don't understand why you're comparing the acts of the USA with this "tragedy". Acts of the USA in that context are (mostly) and apparently with the "intent" of doing a "greater good". Where is the "greater good" in what has happened with the kids? The only positive I see from an evolutionary point of view (or whatever you believe) is that there is one less "murderer" in the world (he shot himself right?) and that the human population is less likely to become overcrowded etc.
Your wrong. More than 100,000 people being killed for "the greater good" isnt comparable to 30 people dying. A life is a life is a life. I dont buy your argument that some lives are worth so much more than others. And the over crowding comment was sickening.
You missed the point. It's the "intent". Are you saying the USA's intent is to kill people for no apparent reason? And my argument was never that some lives are worth more than others - you're putting "words in my mouth".
The points I wanted to make were: 1. This is tragic. 2. It's okay (and normal) to be upset about it. But it's also okay (and normal) not to "care" much about it. 3. Different people react differently to various stimuli. 4. Don't judge people too quickly on an internet forum. 5. Read posts carefully to make sure you understand the point of the post.
if you actually just step back for 1 second and think, HOW did this happen? Im a school teacher and can fully understand that your guard is totally down for something like this and anyone can seem to get onto the premises no matter what you do to keep them out. Schools need to get more LOCKED down from start to end. Kids late get fined and sent home or ordered to stay at home, the school has some sort of VLE to do home learning or even stream the lesson. (of course if u know about teaching the unions would never have this) but id sooner do a bit more work than face the possibility of people getting massacred including me.
Its a totally impossible situation to predict but i think the hard line has to be taken now. Noone in without a card, students, everyone, and globally announce that you just stay away from school premises NO EXCEPTIONS. totally impossible to implement this of course but god damn it, just imagine is this was your child or your family, you wouldnt stop for 1 second and agree that if this is the way its got to be, no matter the inconvenience and logistical mess, this is the way its got to be
im disgusted and it makes me more mad that these people werent identified as odd well before. teachers could play an important role of flagging individuals in school who show tendencies like this. Just a thought, its making me more angry and sorry to more i think about this
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think that coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equals showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that's it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should", funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy this way.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt "prove" anything about mental disorder (even if probably has some)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
I would venture to say the purpose of this particular thread is not to be derailed by political debate, nation-bashing, or any of the other typical "ban traps" that seem to be so tempting to fall into. This thread would likely be for discussing specifics about the case, facepalm at the obvious media errors, and express our sympathy and/or outrage (or lack thereof - without being an insensitive twat).
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.
I'm trying to explain the difference between "madness", "illness", whatever and politically "justified" (tricky word) acts. So it may well be tangent but not necessarily irrelevant (we'll find out soon).
On December 15 2012 08:14 natrus wrote: Your wrong. More than 100,000 people being killed for "the greater good" isnt comparable to 30 people dying. A life is a life is a life. I dont buy your argument that some lives are worth so much more than others. And the over crowding comment was sickening.
Well, in our world this is false, face it. Talking from a French POV, we had 0 problem killing Kadhafi's grand son with bombs, cause the overall cause was worth it. Back in the time you could kill people in the name of God in Europe, but now we are modern and civilised so we do it in the name of Libery
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.
I'm trying to explain the difference between "madness", "illness", whatever and politically "justified" (tricky word) acts. So it may well be tangent but not necessarily irrelevant (we'll find out soon).
So you quoted someone talking about how media sensationalises murder as your talking point?
On December 15 2012 08:19 StatixEx wrote: if you actually just step back for 1 second and think, HOW did this happen? Im a school teacher and can fully understand that your guard is totally down for something like this and anyone can seem to get onto the premises no matter what you do to keep them out. Schools need to get more LOCKED down from start to end. Kids late get fined and sent home or ordered to stay at home, the school has some sort of VLE to do home learning or even stream the lesson. (of course if u know about teaching the unions would never have this) but id sooner do a bit more work than face the possibility of people getting massacred including me.
Its a totally impossible situation to predict but i think the hard line has to be taken now. Noone in without a card, students, everyone, and globally announce that you just stay away from school premises NO EXCEPTIONS. totally impossible to implement this of course but god damn it, just imagine is this was your child or your family, you wouldnt stop for 1 second and agree that if this is the way its got to be, no matter the inconvenience and logistical mess, this is the way its got to be
im disgusted and it makes me more mad that these people werent identified as odd well before. teachers could play an important role of flagging individuals in school who show tendencies like this. Just a thought, its making me more angry and sorry to more i think about this
Flagging someone as a possible mass murderer is like impossible simply because of odd behavior. And what do you mean by "tendencies like this",what tendencies?Did the guy shoot someone before? These things are impossible to predict and people should realize this.
Im so sad right now, my thoughts are with the families.
I guess one of the reason why these shootings seem to increase every year is the fact that we live more and more in a society (or maybe world) of narcissism. If you want to end your life, you have to take the most innocents to death along, its the bitter price society has to pay for its ignorance.
I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
On December 15 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote: StatixEx That'd be an unenforceable overly intrusive nightmare. I'd rather 30 kids died every now and then.
are you for real?
Ideally no children would get shot but I'd rather have the current level of security and accept the risks than turn schools into fortified bunkers with draconian restrictions and drive children to and from them in armoured vehicles.
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
You think a guy with guns and the intention to kill gives a damn about locked doors lol?He could just as well wait for the school to finish and shoot every single one that comes out.
yes kefka but its a start no? Pretty much ALL of the idiot kids at school i grew up with have all been in jail at some point. so . . .what? Looks like i called a problem when i was 8, i could of saved the government the money,. Students who have left me who were idiots have since been pulled up by the police . . hmmm pattern. Not saying that they go full on retard with the murder but mostly we spotted antisocial/evil conduct early . . . just sayin
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
We'd have to have armed guards at every single school in order for this to work. A shooter isn't going to say "oh snap, i forgot my id, guess i cant go and shoot up my school today."
Then what happens when one of those armed guards decides to shoot the school up? We're going to need armed guards guarding armed guards.
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
A man walks in with four guns, a bulletproof vest and you expect an ID card checker to stop him? You're going to need high walls with constant surveillance, bulletproof glass, armed guards and maybe some military dogs for good measure. A minefield wouldn't hurt too. For the children.
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
You think a guy with guns gives a damn about locked doors lol?He could just as well wait for the school to finish and shoot every single one that comes out.
Like I said It's not ideal and not a perfect solution, I'm just going over the idea in my head. Sure they can wait for school to end and then act and sure they can enter by force. I'm just saying it may be a method of prevention or at least forewarning, if someone breaks down a door and the security is disabled.
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
A man walks in with four guns, a bulletproof vest and you expect an ID card checker to stop him? You're going to need high walls with constant surveillance, bulletproof glass, armed guards and maybe some military dogs for good measure. A minefield wouldn't hurt too. For the children.
It's pretty easy to throw out a 'solution' with no thought to the consequences, cost and effectiveness. In this case the kids would get almost no learning done, it would cost a fortune and if people wanted to shoot up a school they could still do it.
On December 15 2012 08:24 StatixEx wrote: of course it is i think i tried to say that! Infact i think i did. You need to read
On December 15 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote: StatixEx That'd be an unenforceable overly intrusive nightmare. I'd rather 30 kids died every now and then.
are you for real?
Ideally no children would get shot but I'd rather have the current level of security and accept the risks than turn schools into fortified bunkers with draconian restrictions and drive children to and from them in armoured vehicles.
Yeah, KwarK is right. Freedom comes with a price. And even with the harsh security restrictions - how can you be sure that some teacher doesn't get mad and this fortified school becomes a death trap suddenly? Bad things happen. People die.
On December 15 2012 08:27 StatixEx wrote: yes kefka but its a start no? Pretty much ALL of the idiot kids at school i grew up with have all been in jail at some point. so . . .what? Looks like i called a problem when i was 8, i could of saved the government the money,. Students who have left me who were idiots have since been pulled up by the police . . hmmm pattern. Not saying that they go full on retard with the murder but mostly we spotted antisocial/evil conduct early . . . just sayin
I don't get it what exactly do you want to do with them?Jail them for a crime they didn't commit? There is no pattern that indicates that someone will go on a shooting spree and you can't predict it.From all the other shootings you can clearly see that they were carefully planed mostly by the killers and no one on the outside knew about it really or could have predicted it in their wildest dreams. There's no point in making schools a high security maximum prison just because of a rare,unpredictable occurrence like this one.
guys guys guys, ur right. we should let this just happen more and more and post on TL and pull up any solution. no need to go stupid, facts are, its not happened to you but i can think of 27 people right now who if i could time machine, implement this and see the cause and effect from the past to now . . . .i might just be the actual hero.
nono kefka, you do nothing with this data but people know and if things start happening in latter life and they have these flags, intervention can be early. Please take my 2 sentence idea and try and think my idea out, im not going to sit here all night fully explaining everything. i fucking hate forms for theory craft. noone reads and applies and understanding process u latch on to 3 words and then just bash it . . .dont even know why im bothering to post, nothing i say will make a difference but my method would have been steps to prevent.
Why must i stand on the corridors at break times? Presence. Kids dont come in the school and run around the corridors. if i miss my duty, its like hells broke loose. simple example, i provide the deterant and kids stay out. you create a deterrent and it usually works. now re read my post. if its an accepted idea that you just stay the fuck away from schools then this wont happen or at least be VERY rare but as i said in my original post, impossible to implement so we just need another way of looking at it
On December 15 2012 08:26 Dodgin wrote: I don't see how making it more difficult to enter a school during the school hours is an overly intrusive nightmare. School starts, no one can get in or out without going through security until school is over. No one gets let inside without a student or teacher ID, or if they're a relative of a student. If people have to leave or go inside they go through security instead of walking through the unlocked front door.
I don't know, it doesn't sound ideal but it doesn't sound terrible either.
A man walks in with four guns, a bulletproof vest and you expect an ID card checker to stop him? You're going to need high walls with constant surveillance, bulletproof glass, armed guards and maybe some military dogs for good measure. A minefield wouldn't hurt too. For the children.
Of course nothing is going to stop someone if they're that determined and heavily armed with bulletproof equipment, but it may prevent students from bringing weapons to school or unprepared adults who don't plan ahead. I'm not sure what the rate of incidents like those happening is as opposed to what happened here. I guess this kind of falls into the same zone as the gun control debate where as " people who do this aren't using legal weapons, it would make no difference " but instead " people who do this aren't amateurs and you can't protect against something like this "
Like you said though, It's probably not worth it. I was just firing off an idea without thinking it through.
On December 15 2012 08:19 StatixEx wrote: if you actually just step back for 1 second and think, HOW did this happen? Im a school teacher and can fully understand that your guard is totally down for something like this and anyone can seem to get onto the premises no matter what you do to keep them out. Schools need to get more LOCKED down from start to end. Kids late get fined and sent home or ordered to stay at home, the school has some sort of VLE to do home learning or even stream the lesson. (of course if u know about teaching the unions would never have this) but id sooner do a bit more work than face the possibility of people getting massacred including me.
Its a totally impossible situation to predict but i think the hard line has to be taken now. Noone in without a card, students, everyone, and globally announce that you just stay away from school premises NO EXCEPTIONS. totally impossible to implement this of course but god damn it, just imagine is this was your child or your family, you wouldnt stop for 1 second and agree that if this is the way its got to be, no matter the inconvenience and logistical mess, this is the way its got to be
im disgusted and it makes me more mad that these people werent identified as odd well before. teachers could play an important role of flagging individuals in school who show tendencies like this. Just a thought, its making me more angry and sorry to more i think about this
Well, I'm not a school teacher, but I have to say a few things about this. First of all, schools aren't maximum security facilities or fortresses. They aren't designed for keeping people out or in. Their design is supposed to be spacious and comfortable. Take away all the windows, glass doors, open corridors and spacious lobbies and you actually create a situation where in this type of event the design actually facilitates the massacre more than it prevents it. If you can't enter or leave a building in an emergency, what you are is trapped. Prevention of this is not the duty of schools. It never was, and they'll never be capable of it. This is why it's pointless to present hypothetical arguments or start throwing around crime statistics. This type of crime is uncommon, despite the attention it garners. A school is in as much danger as any other building filled with unarmed civilians going about their lives, which is why there is no reason to be alarmed about the safety of your own school in this regard. I don't think asking someone in the middle of a rampage for a visitor's pass makes a lick of difference, and neither does trapping yourself in a fortress.
At the end of the day, you also can't go around flagging people as "odd", whatever the fuck that even means...
Finding a way to reduce bullying and ensuring the childs life at home wasn't terrible would probably be about the best way of reducing the occurrence of these incidences.
On December 15 2012 08:27 StatixEx wrote: yes kefka but its a start no? Pretty much ALL of the idiot kids at school i grew up with have all been in jail at some point. so . . .what? Looks like i called a problem when i was 8, i could of saved the government the money,. Students who have left me who were idiots have since been pulled up by the police . . hmmm pattern. Not saying that they go full on retard with the murder but mostly we spotted antisocial/evil conduct early . . . just sayin
I don't get it what do you exactly do you want to do with them?Jail them for a crime they didn't commit? There is no pattern that indicates that someone will go on a shooting spree and you can't predict it.From all the other shootings you can clearly see that they were carefully planed mostly by the killers and no one on the outside knew about it really or could have predicted it in their wildest dreams. There's no point in making schools a high security maximum prison just because of a rare,unpredictable occurrence like this one.
there are plenty of high schools that have metal detectors. even in canada. but yes, to have them at elementary schools is way over the top.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
its called being a human. Usually humans have the ability to feel empathy for others' misfortunes. Look outside of yourself sometime.
He's talking about sensationalism of it, which is not what you are getting at. It's the spectacle, the grand speeches and all that. The same thing happened in China a few days ago, a mall shooting this past week, lots of dying everywhere in more grotesque ways than you can imagine, and it's all there for you to read up on. Humans have the ability to feel empathy for others but it's also true that you can be desensitized, at least to the point that you don't tear up or huddle with others when you don't have an actual connection to the events.
He does not need to be accused of being selfish and heartless to question the media and societal response to events like these. I would venture to say the 'sensationalism' is part of the reason why so many massacres are occurring... because the killers know at the very least the news will let everyone know about their lives and 'tragic' circumstances that led them to kill groups of people.
That said, it's understandable why anyone would lash out at those who are indifferent or analytical about the situation. If you have nieces, or just interact with children I'd imagine the empathy would be immense. Similar to those online bullying cases (Amanda Todd) or any tragedy really.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.
I'm trying to explain the difference between "madness", "illness", whatever and politically "justified" (tricky word) acts. So it may well be tangent but not necessarily irrelevant (we'll find out soon).
So you quoted someone talking about how media sensationalises murder as your talking point?
I didn't quote everything i was answering to, pretty obvious ? I talked about what the first quoted guy said yes, but then discussed the purpose of this topic (quoted OP statement as well), questioned the empathy supposedly shown in this mess and finally made some statements reviewing what i read here about the killer's theorical mental disorder. And yeah, i feel pretty awesome too.
Since everyone seems to come up with suggestions on how to make schools safer, I will add mine. How about 1 sniper on the roof for each school, if someone suspicious (according to the sniper of course) approaches the school, he takes them out with a head shot. This would save so many lives and it would be the perfect solution, right? As you can tell I have read up on these matters and is well versed in the subject. This is a solid plan.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Now this said, when i read this : The gun control argument stops now. I know it's fun to argue about it in the heat of the tragedy when you can get all worked up about it but it's pretty disrespectful and if you don't care enough about the issue to make a separate topic for gun control then you don't care enough to shit on the tragedy by exploiting it.
-> I wonder what's the purpose of this topic (i saw there is a dedicated topic on gun control, i just don't see the point of this one). Do people think coming on a random internet forum to express their feelings equal showing empathy ? You drop a sadface smiley for 30 dead kids and that it ? And you still have the guts to blame some other random internet guy cause he doesnt act like he "should". Funny. Go out and help some homeless guy, i can garantee you'll show a lot more empathy.
PS : the fact "he" shot children doesnt prove anything about mental disorder (still probably a bit though)... if his goal was to start a mediatic madness, he just did the most "efficient" thing he could come with.
We had that in France recently, some guy, muslim, - ~related to French intelligence service in a very unclear way - started to kill french arab soldiers (considered "traitors" for fighting in Afghanistan). He killed 3 of them, for political reasons (there is no debate about how extreme this is). But he probably wasnt satisfied about the response in the medias so what did he do ? He went to a Jewish School and shot 2 jewish kids (promptly sent in Israel to be burried there) as well as a teacher. Netanyahu himself came to visit that school after this, like did ~all french politicians...
Was this terrorist ill ? The reaction of the main power is also a part of terorism's power, remember 9/11 : Random beard man talk about "the bad US whose only goal is to invade others countries to take control of ressources, evil nation wishing to increase it's power in Middle East by any means". > throw two planes in towers, and what did happen in the end ?
It always amazes me how someone can completely miss the point, make a horrible comparison and then go on a tangent irrelevant to the quote.
I'm trying to explain the difference between "madness", "illness", whatever and politically "justified" (tricky word) acts. So it may well be tangent but not necessarily irrelevant (we'll find out soon).
So you quoted someone talking about how media sensationalises murder as your talking point?
I didn't quote everything i was answering to, pretty obvious ? I talked about what the first quoted guy said yes, but then discussed the purpose of this topic (quoted OP statement as well), questioned the empathy supposedly shown in this mess and finally made some statements reviewing what i read here about the killer's theorical mental disorder. And yeah, i feel pretty awesome too.
What you talked about had nothing to do with what was quoted. I'm glad you feel awesome.
Freedom is not free, yes we can implement a billion ways to make the world safer, but if you go to the extremes, like how i feel statixEx is doing here, the world will not be better for it.
I would much rather try to figure out why this happend and how to stop it, one solution being not go batshit crazy on the media coverage. Or we can somehow implement better support systems so fewer people fall outside of society.
Anyhow, whats the best newschannels/sites in the US? Is there still some objective non tabloid places to go?
I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
I'm pretty sure that a policeman out on the streets or pretty much anywhere else will prevent more crime on average instead of sitting in a school each day.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
I live in the US, and every school I have attended had a cop on campus. Not sure if it will help much in this situation though.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
It is not a good idea. What we should do is have police in some kind of centralised location and then some way of notifying them when anyone in their vicinity needs them and then some means by which they can get from the location to the incident. That way the police response can be proportionate and tailored to the level of threat while meeting the needs of the community more efficiently.
Uh. The thread is the perfect place to have a debate about gun control. It isn't disrespectful at all to argue in favor of preventing future tragedies like these in the midst of such an event. So, while I express my deepest condolences to the families affected by this egregious crime, I must add that the header for this thread is dead wrong. Arguing for better gun control in the United States is NOT exploiting this tragedy.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
well i couldnt imagine how furious i would be with the school if my 5 yr old daughter (and yes i have an actual 5 yr old daughter) was point blank fired at. No words will get her back thats for sure, ill never know why they did it, but illl certainly want to know HOW the shooter got in so easy to point blank those kids. christ, im not posting any more on this, im not from america so not sure how accessible getting guns actually are, its rare to hear of shootings over here in the uk, there is of course gun crime but incidents are very few and far between.
sickened by this. As a human, im ashamed that our very being is actually capable of something like this
On December 15 2012 08:48 kochanfe wrote: Uh. The thread is the perfect place to have a debate about gun control. It isn't disrespectful at all to argue in favor of preventing future tragedies like these in the midst of such an event. So, while I express my deepest condolences to the families affected by this egregious crime, I must add that the header for this thread is dead wrong. Arguing for better gun control in the United States is NOT exploiting this tragedy.
The problem with this (as we have seen in similar threads) is it will derail the whole thread into something that have nothing to do with this specific event with people arguing whether or not guns kill people. It's better to have that discussion elsewhere.
On December 15 2012 08:39 sidesprang wrote: Freedom is not free, yes we can implement a billion ways to make the world safer, but if you go to the extremes, like how i feel statixEx is doing here, the world will not be better for it.
I would much rather try to figure out why this happend and how to stop it, one solution being not go batshit crazy on the media coverage. Or we can somehow implement better support systems so fewer people fall outside of society.
Anyhow, whats the best newschannels/sites in the US? Is there still some objective non tabloid places to go?
It happened because someone went fucking ballistic. How do we prevent this? Stop marginalizing people. How do we stop marginalizing people? Nobody knows, because apparently, some people are more easily marginalized than others and willing to shoot toddlers and their own family members. One might argue taking away their guns would prevent them from killing as easily, but it doesn't address causes, so much as serve as a lynchpin sympathy argument that nobody can argue against without coming off as an asshole. What kind of safety nets or support systems can even be implemented to prevent this? Realistically, I mean. How do you isolate individuals and "treat" them without marginalizing them? Would this not serve to drive at-risk individuals further into the depths?
On December 15 2012 08:14 bo1b wrote: What you talked about had nothing to do with what was quoted. I'm glad you feel awesome.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote: Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You don't see how this part is related to his quote ? Really ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Still not ? I'm refering to his quote 1/3 of the f*ucking lines.
(Needless to say i'm done with this pointless discussion, especially considering it's late...)
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
On December 15 2012 08:11 Mu` wrote: Well, actually this is true but presenting things this way is quite stupid. Sure, people die each second in the world... well, you could even say people are murdered each day to make it looks like the event we are talking about. The little difference (compared to "people die") is the number, the fact they were murdered and the fact they were children... If you can't understand why this leads to some "sensationalism", i have to ask you about Hiroshima : why do we even talk about it ? 250 000 dead, less than 2 day of mortality on Earth, why the the hell do we care ? They were bombed like...millions of people before and after them, really, what the f*ck ?
You don't see how this part is related to his quote ? Really ?
You have to be pretty blind if you think it doesn't affect at least your country. You should study a bit what a sovereign state is supposed to be, providing HOMELAND security and such (i thought you even had a department for this !), thus you would understand that people killing children at school (you don't see some kind of symbolism ?) isnt something you can throw away like it doesnt matter. At least, if you start arguing that it will always happen (probably true) anyway, you should realize that it will at least, restart the debate on gun politics (and sorry, i'm just an european pussy, but i would be quite concerned to know if people can freely carry weapons or not...(meaning it should affects you too).
Still not ? I'm refering to his quote 1/3 of the f*ucking lines.
(Needless to say i'm done with this pointless discussion, especially considering it's late...)
A quote on media sensationalism is irrelevant to homeland security and the tragedy of Hiroshima yes.
This is just so tragic and depressing, especially since this happened right before the holidays. I still can't wrap my head around this, I can't even imagine what must be going through the heads of the parents who lost a child. This is just so sad.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
yeah, you need a well trained group of people to take down armed criminal without significant harm usually. A single cop wouldn't achieve much.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal.
You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I would say it's worth the risk because it has the potential to save 20 young children's lives..
However I don't think that placing a police officer in an elementary school is exactly common sense. In a high school yes, but not an elementary school. No one could have seen this coming.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no?
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal.
You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I'm sorry but that is very bad logic, you are saying a trained policeman would lose a fire fight to some random maniac, ok fair enough that COULD happen even if only a small small chance, and as for taking the policemans weapon, most of these shooters are already armed to the teeth already, i doubt it would make much diffrence to their arsenal.
You're basicly saying a policeman would do more harm then good, never though i would hear that, even on the internet.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no?
Risking a life for another life is senseless unless you would say that the policeman's worth less than the kid/whatever.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
That doesn't work. A school is big and one man can't do anything until it's way too late.
Yeah thats true but the point is he could get there before more people are killed. even saving 1 life would be worth it, no?
Risking a life for another life is senseless unless you would say that the policeman's worth less than the kid/whatever.
Didnt say that at all.
But is it not the policemans job to protect other people. They are trained in these situations for a reason..
our country needs to stop marginalizing people. a lot more care needs to be taken towards the mentally ill. such a shame that this is the result of an unfortunate biological circumstance.
On December 15 2012 08:41 Reaps wrote: I heard something on the news and someone suggested just putting one policeman in each school, is that not a good idea? i mean people cant exatcly say its too "expensive" or takes to much "work". Suprised it didnt happen sooner.
And how would this help prevent situations like this?
I dont know, i thought it would be common sense, the policeman is alert'd of someone suspicious or even hear's shots, and he can rush to the scene to help?
Or the policeman is the first person shot, and now the shooter has whatever gadgets our policeman is carrying, in addition to a police radio and uniform (all very harmful when trying to identify the intruder). "Common sense" you say? I would say commonly heard nonsense.
I would say it's worth the risk because it has the potential to save 20 young children's lives..
However I don't think that placing a police officer in an elementary school is exactly common sense. In a high school yes, but not an elementary school. No one could have seen this coming.
Well, simply considering the fact that nobody knows for certain where the next psychopath will strike, putting a bunch of cops who could otherwise be doing police work on standby to prevent something that is highly unlikely to happen in exactly the same way again is not so much a risk as a misappropriation of manpower. They might be able to help there, but what about the infinite other places that could be targeted? This is not unlike any other terrorist act in that it could happen anywhere there are people and a deranged gunman.
This kind thing is so horrid and upsetting. My Mom is a teacher, in fact the shooter and I are almost identical in that respect. I can't imagine what would drive someone to do this. With so many instances of gun violence this year i think it's definitely time to look for a solution so that this doesn't happen. If only for the peace of mind of the families - whose loss will never be replaced. Sad for everyone involved, even the shooter who obviously had some underlying mental issues that were never addressed, but especially for the children who had yet to fully experience life. I definitely think we should look at stricter gun control legislation - but I know this not the place to discuss that. I only wish to express my desire to find an answer because these tragedies need to stop now.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
On December 15 2012 07:13 Aulisemia wrote: 1.8 people die worldwide every second. Never understood the sensationalism behind things like this - tragic for the people involved, but unless you live there it is not like it affects you at all.
Do you have kids? I don't and I had tears for this tragedy.
It affects many parents in the U.S. who love their children dearly. In the last hour I have seen several women on my facebook stating that they were going to homeschool their kids from now on.
I totally agree with Aulisemia. It is tragic and sad but it does not affect me, like it should not affect anyone here unless you are personally related with the people or city of Newtown.
It's the context that makes it sad. I understand your point, but you're being a little insensitive. These children weren't at "high risk" of being shot. Those 44,000 civilians were at high(er) risk. Not sure why you compared people born with HIV? Those people dying of hunger were at "high risk" of...dying of hunger.
So in the end, it's the context that makes it sadder than most news out there. Human conditioning (God induced or evolutionary induced or whatever you believe) also makes us react more to such unexpected events. In a war, people die - that's normal. What's not normal is for kids to be gunned down for apparently no reason.
It's fine to cry at these events, even though logically speaking events just as horrible are commonplace. But I don't agree that its any more or less sad for a child born with HIV to die than a child to be gunned down. These are equally tragic imo.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of proper reply.
Funny how when event like this happens there's always idiots who bring up children dying or aids in Africa or people dying in a war some where. No shit we know these things happen...but if you need to have explained to you why 20 kids being gunned down in a classroom might be upsetting to some people you're probably a waste of life not worth conversing with.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
At some point I would expect a serious debate both in politics and in society in general in the USA about why these events happen so often. It can't just be the guns, there are other countries where guns are allowed. It might be cultural, a side effect of a society that has become too individualized or self-centered. Or it might be the way mental healthcare is setup, how hard or easy it is to get people treated for serious mental disorders, etc. I don't claim to have any answers since I don't live in the USA, but I am sure that within the USA there are some bright minds who can take a good look at what needs to be done to prevent this from occurring. When there are so many events such as this, you can no longer speak of incidents and it is time to take action.
By the way, you don't solve this problem by trying to prevent someone from shooting people. You should think why there are people in the USA who think in a way that it is ok to do something like this, and why these people still walk around freely without medical care.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
This is sad, but it makes me wonder as a society how we let these people slip through the cracks. I find it hard to believe that there weren't signs that something was going on with this guy(s).
On December 15 2012 09:07 lex.licks.life wrote: I am disgusted that the media tried to interview the children after this horrible event.
Yeah but his boss told him to do it.
How is that in any way relevant? The interviewer should be able to take responsibilities for his own actions.
Obviously it is a sad event, but as a society, we should be capable of showing more respect to people than to force them to be on the news so that we can take part of it as well. The reason the reporter did that is because his boss knows it sells and it sells because people watch the stuff they pump out.
On December 15 2012 03:31 Intox wrote: What kind of sick fucks would do that to innocent children.. how the hell do you convince yourself actions like that are just?!? Thoughts to the victims and their families, rest in peace.
Well, I'm betting this lunatic was extremely drugged out of his mind. That is the only explanation I can think of...
People get extremely drugged out of their minds all the time. People don't shoot 20 children at a school all the time.
Such a sad thing to happen, but its only time until another school is shot up again. This won't stop until some big change happens. Maybe 20 elementary kids killed will strike a real change in the US.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's not we don't understand, it's because we know it's ineffective and waste of resources. If every school there is a single armed security is stationed, those maniacs will just go for them first with ease.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's not we don't understand, it's because we know it's ineffective and waste of resources. If every school there is a single armed security is stationed, those maniacs will just go for them first with ease.
Your suggestion is a daft.
Ah yeah i forgot, a 10 year old unarmed kid has more of a chance fighting of a maniac than a arm guard has. ok i am daft. Your right!
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.
On December 15 2012 09:51 Klipsys wrote: I dont understand why they cuffed ryan? Was he involved?
I don't believe they arrested him, I think they just brought him in for questioning, which is standard when something like this happens. They questioned his dad as well, and I assume any friends/girlfriend they can find.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.
Not really, if using handgun ammo, even without armor people can be resilient against it
I'd also like to add that gun control isn't the issue behind this, it's the mental stability of people. If people could be treated for underlying mental issues, lots of situations like these could be prevented.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.
They don't always go down, maybe you don't know, but in the past there were fire fights that has happened between police and criminal with vest. The criminal just wouldn't go down despite multiple officers has successfully hit the criminal with handguns.
Multiple people already pointed out it's stupid idea, if you still fail to see it, you're just a fool.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
1). Too expensive. Police on guard duty charge more (construction sites pay a lot for their traffic constables). You would actually need more than one police officer to provide realistic protection for an entire school and its faculty, as well. Two would be a minimum (male & female) to provide protection against say, child predators who hide in bathrooms - a much more common threat.
2). Takes police away from actual police work. Unless you're suggesting adding even more police to fill the deficit of allocating thousands of cops to thousands of schools to basically sit around.
3). Elementary schools aren't the only target to choose from. Comparable incidents have occurred at high schools, colleges & universities, a movie theater and most likely other places I've missed. Your suggestion needs to account for all possible targets - basically anywhere. I'm sure police have enough of a presence in our day to day lives as it stands.
4). There are alternatives to plopping police in schools to provide peace of mind. Peace of mind can be achieved in different ways, such as training staff for these situations, improving response times of SWAT / Hostage Rescue by having special alarms (surely a fire alarm isn't the only type of alarm that's useful), and maybe reinforced doors with privacy windows and emergency exits on classroom windows JiC.
obviously the gunman had some severe mental health issues.. should be alarming that mental health is so under appreciated that it can degrade to these levels..
On December 15 2012 10:46 Destro wrote: such a tragedy...
obviously the gunman had some severe mental health issues.. should be alarming that mental health is so under appreciated that it can degrade to these levels..
sorry for everyone involved.
People like more tangible things to point fingers at as opposed to mental health, it's always happened like this
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.
They don't always go down, maybe you don't know, but in the past there were fire fights that has happened between police and criminal with vest. The criminal just wouldn't go down despite multiple officers has successfully hit the criminal with handguns.
Multiple people already pointed out it's stupid idea, if you still fail to see it, you're just a fool.
Which is why nowadays police are getting more and more weapons with armor penetration, which isn't to say that we should have police at every school with long guns.
On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet?
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear.
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.
They don't always go down, maybe you don't know, but in the past there were fire fights that has happened between police and criminal with vest. The criminal just wouldn't go down despite multiple officers has successfully hit the criminal with handguns.
Multiple people already pointed out it's stupid idea, if you still fail to see it, you're just a fool.
This is ridiculous to argue about. If a policeman is stationed somewhere the people in that location are safer I think we can agree on that. Sitting at home on our computers we can think of all kinds of specifics and what-ifs but a murderer like this is not going to think everything through and any safety precautions in their way could save lives. I have a police officer stationed in my high school with a gun at his side all day even though my school district is (WAY) in debt and planning to lay off good teachers next year even though we're already understaffed. As a side note I think I should add that it probably hurts like hell to get hit with a bullet even through a vest and at the very least the gunman would be suppressed since in many cases (like this one) someone working in the office of the school could see the person coming in and put the school in "lock-down" thus alerting the officer. And I thought we had a lot of theory-crafting in the strat section this is just silly.
[QUOTE]On December 15 2012 11:01 Maxd11 wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 10:29 furymonkey wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 10:21 Reaps wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 10:19 Chylo wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:47 Reaps wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:43 dUTtrOACh wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:35 Reaps wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:30 dUTtrOACh wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:15 Reaps wrote: [QUOTE]On December 15 2012 09:15 dUTtrOACh wrote: Welcome to the internet? [/QUOTE]
Ah you're one of "those" guys :D makes sense now [/QUOTE]
Yes, one of "those" guys. I like to actually think something through a bit before I say it, and definitely before I call it common sense. You must be one of "those" guys that has a knee-jerk response every time something happens.[/QUOTE]
You obviously didnt think much when you felt the need to say "Welcome to the internet" because you could not think of reply.
Try harder next time.[/QUOTE]
Try harder? Your suggestion to put police in elementary schools is daft. Do you even realize that a single police officer won't do much more than protect his/her own ass? A panic button in every classroom would make more sense, and cost less money. There, I spent 20 sec. thinking of a response that might be to your fancy.[/QUOTE]
The diffrence between a panic button and an actual policeman would be the policeman would already be right near the scene, as with a panic button it would take time for the police to get there. Surely it is not hard to understand?
I'm still waiting for why my suggestion is "daft".
The only daft thing is your comment about the policeman only protecting himself when police all over the world put themselves in danger every single day.
[/QUOTE]
It's dumb because there are 100,000 public schools in the US. And a single police officer is not going to stop these guys who are armed to the teeth and wear bulletproof vests and military gear. [/QUOTE]
Do you even know what happens when someone is shot with a bulletproof vest? They go down, if the bullet has not gone through and killed them they would be serously hurt or unconscious.[/QUOTE]
They don't always go down, maybe you don't know, but in the past there were fire fights that has happened between police and criminal with vest. The criminal just wouldn't go down despite multiple officers has successfully hit the criminal with handguns.
Multiple people already pointed out it's stupid idea, if you still fail to see it, you're just a fool.[/QUOTE] This is ridiculous to argue about. If a policeman is stationed somewhere the people in that location are safer I think we can agree on that. Sitting at home on our computers we can think of all kinds of specifics and what-ifs but a murderer like this is not going to think everything through and any safety precautions in their way could save lives. I have a police officer stationed in my high school with a gun at his side all day even though my school district is (WAY) in debt and planning to lay off good teachers next year even though we're already understaffed. As a side note I think I should add that it probably hurts like hell to get hit with a bullet even through a vest and at the very least the gunman would be suppressed since in many cases (like this one) someone working in the office of the school could see the person coming in and put the school in "lock-down" thus alerting the officer. And I thought we had a lot of theory-crafting in the strat section this is just silly.[/QUOTE]
+1 hence why i stopped replying. Cant have a discussion when everyone is gonna say "what if" this or "what if" that.
And, the one in China today too >.< .. Was a bomb threat near my highschool yesterday. They found a dead body not too far from the dummy grenade, what is this world coming too?
On December 15 2012 11:03 Reaps wrote: +1 hence why i stopped replying. Cant have a discussion when everyone is gonna say "what if" this or "what if" that. Lets just hope they do something.
And here I typed up something for the benefit of everybody. BTW... What if we had police in the schools?
On December 15 2012 11:23 ETisME wrote: he probably just want to drag as many deaths as he could before he kills himself Did the thought of killing children even pause him a while I wonder
Eh, considering he murdered his Parents as well(and the kids in the class his mother was teaching) and then shot himself I think he may have had more motives than just his own death.
I feel for the guys brother though, first he was pinned as the Gunman by the swarm that is the Media, only to later be taken into custody hearing his Brother killed their parents and a bunch of 5-10 year olds.
On December 15 2012 11:23 ETisME wrote: he probably just want to drag as many deaths as he could before he kills himself Did the thought of killing children even pause him a while I wonder
Eh, considering he murdered his Parents as well(and the kids in the class his mother was teaching) and then shot himself I think he may have had more motives than just his own death.
I feel for the guys brother though, first he was pinned as the Gunman by the swarm that is the Media, only to later be taken into custody hearing his Brother killed their parents and a bunch of 5-10 year olds.
Not to mention that *the brother* was mistakenly named as the killer
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
Well, animals do do both of those things (yes, they do kill each other for reasons other than food). If you were to argue that they don't senselessly massacre children, then I guess that would be an argument.
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
this is one of the few times that i`ve seen the true human being trying to fight its way outside of a president. he is struggling so hard to stay in character.. but wow.. its subtle, but really powerful..
On December 15 2012 11:23 ETisME wrote: he probably just want to drag as many deaths as he could before he kills himself Did the thought of killing children even pause him a while I wonder
It's not like he woke up today, ate breakfast, and suddenly thought, "huh, Ima go kill some little kids at my mom's school." It's premeditated. He even shot his own mother in her face. I wonder if he just couldn't stand not getting attention he wanted from everyone, and acted out in a blaze of glory. Killing kids is more impactful, especially the young ones. To paint in a very broad brush, this guy was an extremist attention whore.
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
Animals kill each other outside of feeding purposes, certain animals rape each other as well. No animal develops techniques to help each other on the scale of say a doctor.
No matter how cute it might be to throw out a blanket statement of animals being better then humans, they really are not.
EA probably pissing themselves laughing over the facebook attacks Its only helping them
Yes it was a tragedy but Friends and family of the victims should be the only people giving condolences Really it baffles me why unrelated people feel the need to declare their feelings as if to say I don't really care but I can't let people think im not a good person *barf
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
Animals kill each other outside of feeding purposes, certain animals rape each other as well. No animal develops techniques to help each other on the scale of say a doctor.
No matter how cute it might be to throw out a blanket statement of animals being better then humans, they really are not.
Animals can be symbiotic, i.e. "being a doctor" for material gain.
They can also be fooled into doing stuff for no gain, like raising a cuckoo chick, by abusing their instincts. Which is the same as human altruism.
Can you imagine what it must be like for the parents? These were young kids, the parents easily in their 20's-30's, maybe even single child in most cases. Children of that age do not have any form of ID on them, they would need to take the parents into the rooms to identify them. T___T just the thought of what they are going through right now is almost unbearable
Adam Lanza of Newtown, Connecticut was a child of the suburbs and a child of divorce who at age 20 still lived with his mother. This morning he appears to have started his day by shooting his mother Nancy in the face, and then driving to nearby Sandy Hook Elementary School armed with at least two handguns and at least one semi-automatic rifle. There, before turning his gun on himself, he shot and killed 20 children, who President Obama later described as between five and 10 years of age. Six adults were also killed at the school. Nancy Lanza was found dead in her home. A relative told ABC News that Adam was "obviously not well." Family friends in Newtown also described the young man as troubled and described Nancy as very rigid. "[Adam] was not connected with the other kids," said one friend. State and federal authorities believe his mother may have once worked at the elementary school where Adam went on his deadly rampage, although she was not a teacher, according to relatives, perhaps a volunteer. Nancy and her husband Peter, Adam's father, divorced in 2009. When they first filed for divorce in 2008, a judge ordered that they participate in a "parenting education program." Peter Lanza, who drove to northern New Jersey to talk to police and the FBI, is a vice president at GE Capital and had been a partner at global accounting giant Ernst & Young. Adam's older brother Ryan Lanza, 24, has worked at Ernst & Young for four years, apparently following in his father's footsteps and carving out a solid niche in the tax practice. He too was interviewed by the FBI. Neither he nor his father is under any suspicion. "[Ryan] is a tax guy and he is clean as a whistle," a source familiar with his work said. Police had initially identified Ryan as the killer. Ryan sent out a series of Facebook posts saying it wasn't him and that he was at work all day. Video records as well as card swipes at Ernst & Young verified his statement that he had been at the office. Investigators are looking into whether Adam Lanza was carrying his older brother Ryan's identification at the time of the shooting, which may have caused the confusion. Neither Adam nor Ryan has any known criminal history.
On December 15 2012 14:23 Meatex wrote: EA probably pissing themselves laughing over the facebook attacks Its only helping them
Yes it was a tragedy but Friends and family of the victims should be the only people giving condolences Really it baffles me why unrelated people feel the need to declare their feelings as if to say I don't really care but I can't let people think im not a good person *barf
Um. Some people are more empathetic than others, clearly. Sometimes people feel pain of others even if it is not necessarily the pain of others within a specific family or social circle. Sometimes people simply feel the pain of strangers, yet still feel compelled to send that stranger well wishes -- not to play the part of acting nice, but to genuinely act nice, empathetic, and compassionate. The feelings may rub off and lift the spirits of those who need it more. Who are you to judge when it is appropriate for a person to grieve with another?
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
Animals kill each other outside of feeding purposes, certain animals rape each other as well. No animal develops techniques to help each other on the scale of say a doctor.
No matter how cute it might be to throw out a blanket statement of animals being better then humans, they really are not.
Animals can be symbiotic, i.e. "being a doctor" for material gain.
They can also be fooled into doing stuff for no gain, like raising a cuckoo chick, by abusing their instincts. Which is the same as human altruism.
I dont get that last part. Im pretty sure humans can help each other even if they are not fooled to do iy.t.
Only animals i know that willingly sacrfise thenselves are ants and other insects like that. But they bearly have a brain so using the term willingly is also pretty stupid.
There are humans who do bad things to others for the sake of being evil that animals are not known to do. They only kill for food or exersice or other gains like that. Still overall i would rate human high above animals in terms of being "good"
Oh my god wow......... God bless those little children and there parents this is absolutely ridiculous...makes me so upset...I am going to say a very long prayer tonight for these people...God bless the childrens souls and there families... this is so heartbreaking...sick sinister fucks to do something like this, but to little children in an elementary school, REALLY? REALLY? Jesus christ what has the world come to.
I held my daughter so much closer tonight when I got home after hearing this. She isnt old enough to go to school yet. But with how often sick freaks shoot up the most defenseless places these days, I am strongly considering doing some type of part time or full time homeschooling.
Compassion is irrelevant, it wont help the dead, nor will it help the next victims of the next shootings unless there is change. Change in the form of strict laws because there wont be any other change that would show any effect. Or has it become part of our society like the blood sports in old rome ? How many dead ? Who is dead ? Any pictures ? Oh the poor relatives and friends must be suffering! How could this have happened ? Who was the shooter ? What were his motives ? How was his child hood ? Which weapons did he use ? What was his exact day ? What did he have for breakfast ? What is the timeline of the shooting ? It is becoming a media spectacle in which people thrive on the compassion and the horrible crime. They chat about it and post on facebook or do other stuff that doesnt really matter in the end, it wont help victims nor will it prevent anything. Its a spectacle like a theater where only the emotion counts because the spectacle itself is pure fiction and show and nobody really cares about the suffering and the situation itself. They go on their little moral crusade pointing out how bad everyone else is and saying how bad the shootings are but not drawing any real concequences in thinking how to prevent such things in the furture and act on them.
On December 15 2012 09:47 Domus wrote: At some point I would expect a serious debate both in politics and in society in general in the USA about why these events happen so often. It can't just be the guns, there are other countries where guns are allowed. It might be cultural, a side effect of a society that has become too individualized or self-centered. Or it might be the way mental healthcare is setup, how hard or easy it is to get people treated for serious mental disorders, etc. I don't claim to have any answers since I don't live in the USA, but I am sure that within the USA there are some bright minds who can take a good look at what needs to be done to prevent this from occurring. When there are so many events such as this, you can no longer speak of incidents and it is time to take action.
By the way, you don't solve this problem by trying to prevent someone from shooting people. You should think why there are people in the USA who think in a way that it is ok to do something like this, and why these people still walk around freely without medical care.
I have thought about this carefully for years now. My answer is that it's complicated. It's not one thing, but many things. Rather than derail the thread and upset people, send me a private message and I'll give you my conclusion and details.
8:06 p.m.: Vance, speaking to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, says they'll be processing the crime scene until Sunday and that the bodies of the children and adults killed remain in the school where they fell, and will still be there until Sunday. Parents have not been allowed to see the bodies of their children. "We will leave no stone unturned" in pursuit of answering the questions of how and why this happened, says Vance. At this time he would not confirm the name of the shooter or whether he had "a personality disorder" or "a mental disorder."
Wtf? The shooter is dead. Why are they not removing the bodies? It seems kind of sick for not to remove the bodies from the place they were murdered for days, while their families are not allowed to see them and mourn. The only evidence they are collecting is gory pictures and super detailed murder descriptions so they can feed the sordid details to the media and congress. I can't believe what they are doing.
Think about what's happening right now. There are cold bloody bodies draped over desks and piled on top of each other in the classroom right now. The killer is dead. They are taking pictures, looking at the bodies, who knows what the hell they're doing. This is really f*cked up. Think about what they are doing.
Wow, are those people serious? "Ban Mass Effect!" "A murderer liked your game, think on what you have done." "Anonymous should take out Mass Effect's website." Personally, I am gonna do my part and stop using Colgate toothpaste because I heard the shooter used it that morning. Get real.
On December 15 2012 12:05 ControlMonkey wrote: Human beings are animals.
Lol, not even close. Do animals kill their own sons? do animals murder other animals ? ( except for feeding purposes, which is totally natural?? I dont think so, we are worse than animals.
Animals kill each other outside of feeding purposes, certain animals rape each other as well. No animal develops techniques to help each other on the scale of say a doctor.
No matter how cute it might be to throw out a blanket statement of animals being better then humans, they really are not.
Animals can be symbiotic, i.e. "being a doctor" for material gain.
They can also be fooled into doing stuff for no gain, like raising a cuckoo chick, by abusing their instincts. Which is the same as human altruism.
I dont get that last part. Im pretty sure humans can help each other even if they are not fooled to do iy.t.
Only animals i know that willingly sacrfise thenselves are ants and other insects like that. But they bearly have a brain so using the term willingly is also pretty stupid.
There are humans who do bad things to others for the sake of being evil that animals are not known to do. They only kill for food or exersice or other gains like that. Still overall i would rate human high above animals in terms of being "good"
Certain types of monkey's can give their own food to another monkey if it looks like he needs it with seemingly no self benefit (there's been control studies of this). Not that I'm sure how this relate to this thread. Human's and animal's alike are capable of good and bad. There's not surprise here. Arguing who is better than the other seems kind of pointless.
On December 15 2012 11:23 ETisME wrote: he probably just want to drag as many deaths as he could before he kills himself Did the thought of killing children even pause him a while I wonder
It's not like he woke up today, ate breakfast, and suddenly thought, "huh, Ima go kill some little kids at my mom's school." It's premeditated. He even shot his own mother in her face. I wonder if he just couldn't stand not getting attention he wanted from everyone, and acted out in a blaze of glory. Killing kids is more impactful, especially the young ones. To paint in a very broad brush, this guy was an extremist attention whore.
Well you certainly don't have anything to base this on. Chances are this isn't true and it was the result of a severe mental disorder.
If Ryan Lanza is the brother of Adam Lanza, its pretty weird that he only cared about people mistaking him as the shooter, instead of the fact that hes brother just shot himself, bunch of kids and hes mother.
On December 15 2012 19:36 Sea_Food wrote: If Ryan Lanza is the brother of Adam Lanza, its pretty weird that he only cared about people mistaking him as the shooter, instead of the fact that hes brother just shot himself, bunch of kids and hes mother.
Being mistaken for a guy that killed a bunch of kids could quite easily result in him being killed too. He's actually showing quite a bit of logic getting that cleared up asap.
On December 15 2012 19:36 Sea_Food wrote: If Ryan Lanza is the brother of Adam Lanza, its pretty weird that he only cared about people mistaking him as the shooter, instead of the fact that hes brother just shot himself, bunch of kids and hes mother.
It's very possible that there are multiple Ryan Lanza's, I personally have an extremely weird surname, and there are at least three people who share my full name, I don't think the actual brother is in the position to be posting facebook messages about it, I think i read somewhere he was in police custody being questioned.
I wish the identity of the killer was not the hottest topic every time something like this happens. Its better he remains a faceless coward, rather than a notorious monster that can inspire others. But ofcourse we can't expect people to leave it alone, we all love our monsters.
Wow, are those people serious? "Ban Mass Effect!" "A murderer liked your game, think on what you have done." "Anonymous should take out Mass Effect's website." Personally, I am gonna do my part and stop using Colgate toothpaste because I heard the shooter used it that morning. Get real.
I wish there was the same reaction to the specific rounds and weapons that the killer used and the avenues that he recieved the materials that directly helped him commit the crime instead, at least that follows some logic. "Boycott the person who sold this weapon to him with out checking mental background" "Anonymous should take out the sites of people who did the processing to allow this person to acquire a weapon."
Guns obviously do not kill people, people do, and if for example our solution is to ban guns in order to stop killing we never address the problem that is the individual who did it and why he did it... instead we piss off some people who like guns and would never hurt anyone... At the same time if a crazy persons wants to kill, he or she will find a way no matter wat.. This type of external problem solving has never proven to work... (for example war on drugs burning of land to stop growing drugs) such methods never work yet we keep using why?, Is this the best we can come up with? It seems so...
We never stop taking time to understand why people do it, people don't just become crazy there are reasons for it and if we don't understand these we can't solve it... gun control/ban is patch work... I see this as a psychological issue rather then a material one...
on a side note: From my Observation it seems these emotional reactions to such events are rather arbitrary right. Because every moment someone dies, by gun, by malnutrition, by a crazy person.. by anything... and we don't care... Out of sight out of mind.. and when it appears in our sight we don't want to look at the problem we want to have a quick solution so we can move on with life... that is my general perception how people, singular and in groups want to deal with such serious problems.
This is so sad, i'm chocked this shit keeps happening!
TV needs to focus on victims and ways to stop this from happening, instead of the who's, why's etc.. This fuels ideas for other psycos out there!
Violence and guns are so mainstream in the USA, that people will forget this ASAP. The bigger problem is that it happened before and will probably happen again if nothing is changed... I don't know what to do, but make it stop!
I don't think there was ever any shooting done at any school in my country, lets keep this way for ever please!
On December 15 2012 20:18 Saji wrote: Guns obviously do not kill people, people do, and if for example our solution is to ban guns in order to stop killing we never address the problem that is the individual who did it and why he did it... instead we piss off some people who like guns and would never hurt anyone... At the same time if a crazy persons wants to kill, he or she will find a way no matter wat.. This type of external problem solving has never proven to work... (for example war on drugs burning of land to stop growing drugs) such methods never work yet we keep using why?, Is this the best we can come up with? It seems so...
We never stop taking time to understand why people do it, people don't just become crazy there are reasons for it and if we don't understand these we can't solve it... gun control/ban is patch work... I see this as a psychological issue rather then a material one...
on a side note: From my Observation it seems these emotional reactions to such events are rather arbitrary right. Because every moment someone dies, by gun, by malnutrition, by a crazy person.. by anything... and we don't care... Out of sight out of mind.. and when it appears in our sight we don't want to look at the problem we want to have a quick solution so we can move on with life... that is my general perception how people, singular and in groups want to deal with such serious problems.
As far as I can tell, he's broken the following laws:
-Stealing the guns, as they belong to his mother -Unlawful possession on two accounts: He's not old enough, and he has a history of mental illness. Both legally barring him from having guns. -Carrying them in and of it self is a crime in CT -Carrying/having guns at a school is illegal -Shooting children and other innocent people is obviously horrifically illegal.
We had a similar scenario occur in Norway last year, where more than twice the number of kids were killed. We have very strict gun control, and murder rates are very low here in general. This killer made a bomb and shot a bunch of kids. He was looking into buying guns illegally from another country, and he also obtained the bomb ingredients by illegal means.
In the words of Penn and Teller: You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws-that's insane!
The solutions have to be along the lines of prevention and intervention in these individuals. Also stronger enforcement of existing laws. Preparation on the schools side is also a good idea. I'd feel much better knowing that at least 30% of the teachers had gone through an extensive training course and carried weapons in school.
8:06 p.m.: Vance, speaking to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, says they'll be processing the crime scene until Sunday and that the bodies of the children and adults killed remain in the school where they fell, and will still be there until Sunday. Parents have not been allowed to see the bodies of their children. "We will leave no stone unturned" in pursuit of answering the questions of how and why this happened, says Vance. At this time he would not confirm the name of the shooter or whether he had "a personality disorder" or "a mental disorder."
Wtf? The shooter is dead. Why are they not removing the bodies? It seems kind of sick for not to remove the bodies from the place they were murdered for days, while their families are not allowed to see them and mourn. The only evidence they are collecting is gory pictures and super detailed murder descriptions so they can feed the sordid details to the media and congress. I can't believe what they are doing.
Think about what's happening right now. There are cold bloody bodies draped over desks and piled on top of each other in the classroom right now. The killer is dead. They are taking pictures, looking at the bodies, who knows what the hell they're doing. This is really f*cked up. Think about what they are doing.
Yeah, these people investigate crime for a living. How exactly is that "fucked up"? Kind of what happens after a murder.
On December 15 2012 16:19 Sea_Food wrote: There are humans who do bad things to others for the sake of being evil that animals are not known to do. They only kill for food or exersice or other gains like that.
So when a young pack of lions kill the older males to mate with the females why do they kill the younglings of the old ones?
On December 15 2012 16:19 Sea_Food wrote: There are humans who do bad things to others for the sake of being evil that animals are not known to do. They only kill for food or exersice or other gains like that.
So when a young pack of lions kill the older males to mate with the females why do they kill the younglings of the old ones?
Eliminate potential competition. Birds do this too.
On December 15 2012 20:56 Nausea wrote: I bet any day now they will find a copy of a GTA game in his house among 30 other games and pin the blame on the game.
No need. They pinned the fault at mass effect because his brother "liked" it on facebook. Its not only disgusting that people would do something like this, but also that people try to lay the fault wherever they can, connection or no.
Respect, kindness and understanding for each other is what we need. Some comments in this thread show that there are quite some people lacking that... If we want to prevent such things, we should start at ourself
On December 15 2012 16:19 Sea_Food wrote: There are humans who do bad things to others for the sake of being evil that animals are not known to do. They only kill for food or exersice or other gains like that.
So when a young pack of lions kill the older males to mate with the females why do they kill the younglings of the old ones?
Eliminate potential competition. Birds do this too.
iirc the main reason they kill cubs of other males is because it takes a lioness something around 2 years to raise a cub,during the time they won't mate with anyone.Male lions can't wait for so long because they are at risk to loose their pack,not sure how long a average lion holds the position but it's quite a short time frame. So yea they kill because they need to mate asap and can't just wait in line till the lioness raises the cubs of a former mate.
On December 15 2012 22:43 Paperplane wrote: Glad to see this thread is now about lions mating >.>
A male lion can mate with a single lioness hundreds of times over the span of a few days when she is in heat. And there can be 10+ females in a pride. I'm beginning to understand why the males mostly just lay around all day. It's not laziness, it's exhaustion.
On December 15 2012 20:10 Crushinator wrote: I wish the identity of the killer was not the hottest topic every time something like this happens. Its better he remains a faceless coward, rather than a notorious monster that can inspire others. But ofcourse we can't expect people to leave it alone, we all love our monsters.
Horrible tragedy, words cannot express.
Cant agree more,
They want their 15 min of fame and for their name to go around. Better to not give them the attention and let them be known as "that guy"
8:06 p.m.: Vance, speaking to CNN's Soledad O'Brien, says they'll be processing the crime scene until Sunday and that the bodies of the children and adults killed remain in the school where they fell, and will still be there until Sunday. Parents have not been allowed to see the bodies of their children. "We will leave no stone unturned" in pursuit of answering the questions of how and why this happened, says Vance. At this time he would not confirm the name of the shooter or whether he had "a personality disorder" or "a mental disorder."
Wtf? The shooter is dead. Why are they not removing the bodies? It seems kind of sick for not to remove the bodies from the place they were murdered for days, while their families are not allowed to see them and mourn. The only evidence they are collecting is gory pictures and super detailed murder descriptions so they can feed the sordid details to the media and congress. I can't believe what they are doing.
Think about what's happening right now. There are cold bloody bodies draped over desks and piled on top of each other in the classroom right now. The killer is dead. They are taking pictures, looking at the bodies, who knows what the hell they're doing. This is really f*cked up. Think about what they are doing.
They're doing their job and trying to figure out what exactly happened, unlike the media you seem to think they're appeasing. Yes it's awful, but it's necessary.
Also: Please stop interviewing kids. Please stop interviewing parents. And please stop telling me ANYTHING about the individual who commited this crime. I don't care who he was and (as a psychologist) I doubt that there is anything valid you can read into him, his background or anything else. This story isn't about him. After a few weeks of grief and sorrow, please lets (seriously!) talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. Families have suffered enough.
On December 15 2012 23:28 Grumpy wrote: Thoughts are with the families.
Also: Please stop interviewing kids. Please stop interviewing parents. And please stop telling me ANYTHING about the individual who commited this crime. I don't care who he was and (as a psychologist) I doubt that there is anything valid you can read into him, his background or anything else. This story isn't about him. After a few weeks of grief and sorrow, please lets (seriously!) talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. Families have suffered enough.
This.
Call me crazy, but I think the reason some of these shootings occur (as crazy as this sounds) is because the shooter wants to get some attention.
On December 15 2012 23:28 Grumpy wrote: Thoughts are with the families.
Also: Please stop interviewing kids. Please stop interviewing parents. And please stop telling me ANYTHING about the individual who commited this crime. I don't care who he was and (as a psychologist) I doubt that there is anything valid you can read into him, his background or anything else. This story isn't about him. After a few weeks of grief and sorrow, please lets (seriously!) talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. Families have suffered enough.
This.
Call me crazy, but I think the reason some of these shootings occur (as crazy as this sounds) is because the shooter wants to get some attention.
I honestly think it was because of the whole world ending thing. He wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame before it all ended. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if more people did this before the 21st. Messed up society we live in. :/
On December 15 2012 23:28 Grumpy wrote: Thoughts are with the families.
Also: Please stop interviewing kids. Please stop interviewing parents. And please stop telling me ANYTHING about the individual who commited this crime. I don't care who he was and (as a psychologist) I doubt that there is anything valid you can read into him, his background or anything else. This story isn't about him. After a few weeks of grief and sorrow, please lets (seriously!) talk about what we can do to prevent this in the future. Families have suffered enough.
This.
Call me crazy, but I think the reason some of these shootings occur (as crazy as this sounds) is because the shooter wants to get some attention.
I honestly think it was because of the whole world ending thing. He wanted to get his 15 minutes of fame before it all ended. Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if more people did this before the 21st. Messed up society we live in. :/
The idea that 20 children's parents rushed to the school to find that their children had been shot breaks my heart. Nobody deserves that, it's cruel on so many levels.
The media coverage has been pretty disgusting. The way they try to sex up the story as much as possible is terrible and trying to interview the children and starting a witch-hunt against the killers brother, as if he wasn't going through enough already, are just awful. I'm sure they're also all probably using this tragedy to push whatever agenda they have against video games/films/the internet. I hope they get nailed hard by whoever regulates them.
Very sad.. I was banned on the issue of guns , so I wont go there, where any common sense goes.. but After WW2, UssR had half Europe ,but here , In Romania, from '45 till '60 , was that neverending hope that allies (US and UK) will not let us to communism , they will come to save us., so many romanian patriots were keeping guns in the closet , etc. One reason to keep weapons.. I always had high regards , to the US , but , after all, they will kill themselves, they will kill their children, all in the name of protect , protect, protect.. Very sad, again..
On December 16 2012 01:43 Kamate wrote: , to the US , but , after all, they will kill themselves, they will kill their children, all in the name of protect , protect, protect..
Yeah, these are the kind of comments that start shit.
On December 15 2012 20:18 Saji wrote: Guns obviously do not kill people, people do, and if for example our solution is to ban guns in order to stop killing we never address the problem that is the individual who did it and why he did it... instead we piss off some people who like guns and would never hurt anyone... At the same time if a crazy persons wants to kill, he or she will find a way no matter wat.. This type of external problem solving has never proven to work... (for example war on drugs burning of land to stop growing drugs) such methods never work yet we keep using why?, Is this the best we can come up with? It seems so...
We never stop taking time to understand why people do it, people don't just become crazy there are reasons for it and if we don't understand these we can't solve it... gun control/ban is patch work... I see this as a psychological issue rather then a material one...
on a side note: From my Observation it seems these emotional reactions to such events are rather arbitrary right. Because every moment someone dies, by gun, by malnutrition, by a crazy person.. by anything... and we don't care... Out of sight out of mind.. and when it appears in our sight we don't want to look at the problem we want to have a quick solution so we can move on with life... that is my general perception how people, singular and in groups want to deal with such serious problems.
User was temp banned for this post.
There will always be some crazy bastards. Hoping you can prevent that these people exist is not realistic, but it is very possible to limit the distribution/availability of weapons to decrease the chance of such event occuring. This would however require a major shift in mindset in the US i guess.
May be we should start arming and training little children in weapon usage so they can defend themselfs in such a scenario? Doesn't this sound crazy? Because that is exactly the argument the gun lobby uses point out why guns are necessary for safety...
On December 15 2012 20:18 Saji wrote: Guns obviously do not kill people, people do, and if for example our solution is to ban guns in order to stop killing we never address the problem that is the individual who did it and why he did it... instead we piss off some people who like guns and would never hurt anyone... At the same time if a crazy persons wants to kill, he or she will find a way no matter wat.. This type of external problem solving has never proven to work... (for example war on drugs burning of land to stop growing drugs) such methods never work yet we keep using why?, Is this the best we can come up with? It seems so...
We never stop taking time to understand why people do it, people don't just become crazy there are reasons for it and if we don't understand these we can't solve it... gun control/ban is patch work... I see this as a psychological issue rather then a material one...
on a side note: From my Observation it seems these emotional reactions to such events are rather arbitrary right. Because every moment someone dies, by gun, by malnutrition, by a crazy person.. by anything... and we don't care... Out of sight out of mind.. and when it appears in our sight we don't want to look at the problem we want to have a quick solution so we can move on with life... that is my general perception how people, singular and in groups want to deal with such serious problems.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why did he get banned for this? Some TL Mods shouldn't be mods at all.
On December 15 2012 20:18 Saji wrote: Guns obviously do not kill people, people do, and if for example our solution is to ban guns in order to stop killing we never address the problem that is the individual who did it and why he did it... instead we piss off some people who like guns and would never hurt anyone... At the same time if a crazy persons wants to kill, he or she will find a way no matter wat.. This type of external problem solving has never proven to work... (for example war on drugs burning of land to stop growing drugs) such methods never work yet we keep using why?, Is this the best we can come up with? It seems so...
We never stop taking time to understand why people do it, people don't just become crazy there are reasons for it and if we don't understand these we can't solve it... gun control/ban is patch work... I see this as a psychological issue rather then a material one...
on a side note: From my Observation it seems these emotional reactions to such events are rather arbitrary right. Because every moment someone dies, by gun, by malnutrition, by a crazy person.. by anything... and we don't care... Out of sight out of mind.. and when it appears in our sight we don't want to look at the problem we want to have a quick solution so we can move on with life... that is my general perception how people, singular and in groups want to deal with such serious problems.
User was temp banned for this post.
Why did he get banned for this? Some TL Mods shouldn't be mods at all.
On December 16 2012 01:43 Kamate wrote: , to the US , but , after all, they will kill themselves, they will kill their children, all in the name of protect , protect, protect..
Yeah, these are the kind of comments that start shit.
On December 16 2012 03:55 trinxified wrote: So, will Ryan Lanza (brother of killer who was at first suspected) be able to sue the media for incorrect information?
He was arrested, in connection with the case then released as they wanted to question him. Im pretty sure won't be any compensation to answer for.
Also, the Police seem to have wrapped this case up pretty quickly which is very good on their part. They will be released it as soon as they can. What i get from it so far;
He Kills his mother Somehow links to the school Goes to the school Kills as many in the school as he can (and someone he wanted too as well) Kills himself
Interested to see what the verdict is on this case, and why he did what he did, it seems very extreme that kids could of done anything to make him do what he did.
Apparently someone at Bioware has the same name as the shooter or the mistaken name the news gave to the public and he had his social media pages filled with thousands of angry horribly hate filled messages. I know this is a tragedy but that does not excuse the mindless hate that follows. It was obviously not the same person, the shooter died at the scene, and the ages were way off.
On December 16 2012 04:17 TheSwedishFan wrote: Why are these kind of events always done by males? Mostly white males?
-smashes my head against the wall repeatedly- Do not even get me started, do not even get me started on this...
ANYONE is capable of this. Do not demonize white people. Do not demonize ANYONE. These are individual events done by individual people - have you forgotten that Virginia Tech was done by a Korean? Does that mean all Korean males are schizophrenic killers? NO!
On December 16 2012 04:17 TheSwedishFan wrote: Why are these kind of events always done by males? Mostly white males?
-smashes my head against the wall repeatedly- Do not even get me started, do not even get me started on this...
ANYONE is capable of this. Do not demonize white people. Do not demonize ANYONE. These are individual events done by individual people - have you forgotten that Virginia Tech was done by a Korean? Does that mean all Korean males are schizophrenic killers? NO!
So just stop.
Could, but it hasn't. Anyone is capable of doing this, yet not everyone does it.
You should never outright deny statistics that could lead somewhere, especially those that are true. (I'm not saying they do, or have any assumptions to follow it up on).
Tbh I think a good discussion could be made out of why only males do this, and not females (none that I have heard of as of yet anyways).
On December 16 2012 04:17 TheSwedishFan wrote: Why are these kind of events always done by males? Mostly white males?
-smashes my head against the wall repeatedly- Do not even get me started, do not even get me started on this...
ANYONE is capable of this. Do not demonize white people. Do not demonize ANYONE. These are individual events done by individual people - have you forgotten that Virginia Tech was done by a Korean? Does that mean all Korean males are schizophrenic killers? NO!
So just stop.
Could, but it hasn't. Anyone is capable of doing this, yet not everyone does it.
You should never outright deny statistics that could lead somewhere, especially those that are true. (I'm not saying they do, or have any assumptions to follow it up on).
Tbh I think a good discussion could be made out of why only males do this, and not females (none that I have heard of as of yet anyways).
Okay, you DO have a good point about the male vs female thing, and that could make for a good discussion. However the race thing just drives me absolutely crazy, but I can never talk about it without being called racist...
I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
In Sweden, they solve this by not only being the first to report the incorrect information, but then also being the first to debunk the incorrect information (now referred to as "rumor") when it turns out they made it up. 2x big headlines, what more could you wish for...
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
I was watching CTV news today, a clinical psychologist was pretty shocked that the media were trying to interview 6 year old kids right after the incident; he felt they should have been left alone after going through such a traumatic incident.
He was thankful that the state police stopped the news reporters from trying to interview these kids. But I think there is something a but unsettling about how the media approaches these stories in general. At least some media outlets don't seem respectful to the personal needs of the kids, and what they might be going through...all they care about is getting a big, emotional story.
On December 16 2012 04:17 TheSwedishFan wrote: Why are these kind of events always done by males? Mostly white males?
-smashes my head against the wall repeatedly- Do not even get me started, do not even get me started on this...
ANYONE is capable of this. Do not demonize white people. Do not demonize ANYONE. These are individual events done by individual people - have you forgotten that Virginia Tech was done by a Korean? Does that mean all Korean males are schizophrenic killers? NO!
So just stop.
Could, but it hasn't. Anyone is capable of doing this, yet not everyone does it.
You should never outright deny statistics that could lead somewhere, especially those that are true. (I'm not saying they do, or have any assumptions to follow it up on).
Tbh I think a good discussion could be made out of why only males do this, and not females (none that I have heard of as of yet anyways).
Its probably far easier for a female with npd to get the attention she feels she needs then a male.
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
I was watching CTV news today, a clinical psychologist was pretty shocked that the media were trying to interview 6 year old kids right after the incident; he felt they should have been left alone after going through such a traumatic incident.
He was thankful that the state police stopped the news reporters from trying to interview these kids. But I think there is something a but unsettling about how the media approaches these stories in general. At least some media outlets don't seem respectful to the personal needs of the kids, and what they might be going through...all they care about is getting a big, emotional story.
I think a solution would be there should be more public outcry against reporters & news networks that interview these kids and those like them. There is a lack of public shaming and what happens become easily forgotten the next day. To make the public aware that this is just not right would require media help...
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
When I watch live news I just come to terms with the fact that a lot of the early reports are going to be filled with rumor and speculation. There is so much chaos going on the ground there that it's impossible to immediately find the answers that people are looking for. If I wanted the most accurate information I would just find something else to do and read about the story in a day or two when the facts are out. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can get the news fast with a lot of misinformation or you can wait and get a more accurate report. I think that is a pretty fair choice.
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
When I watch live news I just come to terms with the fact that a lot of the early reports are going to be filled with rumor and speculation. There is so much chaos going on the ground there that it's impossible to immediately find the answers that people are looking for. If I wanted the most accurate information I would just find something else to do and read about the story in a day or two when the facts are out. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can get the news fast with a lot of misinformation or you can wait and get a more accurate report. I think that is a pretty fair choice.
So you're perfectly ok with professionals passing on hear-say as fact without proper screening of the information? And then not caring if their misinformation damages other people who aren't involved? I view it as completely unprofessional and something that we, as a society shouldn't be ok with.
Passing on rumors that pertain to a tragedy for the sake of drawing in higher viewership numbers is terribly unethical.
yesterday at work, every single woman I work with broke down in tears the more we found out about the situation live. (we are in massachusetts and some of our reps do appointments in connecticut and particularly newtown)
what a shitty tragedy. to me, as the facts stand now, it still makes no sense why someone would do such a thing. he must have been so far gone down a dark path to consciously make the decisions that he did.
i am so sorry for the friends and family of those children. i hope this never happens again.
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
When I watch live news I just come to terms with the fact that a lot of the early reports are going to be filled with rumor and speculation. There is so much chaos going on the ground there that it's impossible to immediately find the answers that people are looking for. If I wanted the most accurate information I would just find something else to do and read about the story in a day or two when the facts are out. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can get the news fast with a lot of misinformation or you can wait and get a more accurate report. I think that is a pretty fair choice.
So you're perfectly ok with professionals passing on hear-say as fact without proper screening of the information? And then not caring if their misinformation damages other people who aren't involved? I view it as completely unprofessional and something that we, as a society shouldn't be ok with.
Passing on rumors that pertain to a tragedy for the sake of drawing in higher viewership numbers is terribly unethical.
I rarely see them reporting hearsay as fact. They say things like "allegedly" and "sources say" and "early reports" and all kinds of other bullshit terms. You just have to consider the source. Cable news is one step above tabloid journalism, I don't demand professional journalism from them any more than I demand a 4-star meal from McDonalds.
On December 16 2012 07:28 Timmsh wrote: They openly said on our news report, here in the Netherlands, that it's strange that only white males are doing these shootings.
Yes, but their sex and their skin color are totally irrelevant to the act. What does it change? The problem absolutely does not lie there.
My condolences to the families of the deceased. What a tragic way to lose a loved one.
On December 16 2012 07:28 Timmsh wrote: They openly said on our news report, here in the Netherlands, that it's strange that only white males are doing these shootings.
Yes, but their sex and their skin color are totally irrelevant to the act. What does it change? The problem absolutely does not lie there.
My condolences to the families of the deceased. What a tragic way to lose a loved one.
If we can find somekind of applyable reason as to why males do this and so few females, we could help prevent this in the future.
That said, I'm honestly unsure if there is one. I think its just that our brains are wired different.
There's a lot of headlines coming out about how the kid was a "loner" and had aspergers. I really fucking hate it when the media has to say shit like, "he was a "loner"", or "he suffered from a personality disorder." People can be loners without wanting to kill children. People can have "disorders" without wanting to kill people. I don't want people to be scared of me because I like being left alone. (No, I DON'T want to hurt anyone!)
On December 16 2012 09:09 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: There's a lot of headlines coming out about how the kid was a "loner" and had aspergers. I really fucking hate it when the media has to say shit like, "he was a "loner"", or "he suffered from a personality disorder." People can be loners without wanting to kill children. People can have "disorders" without wanting to kill people. I don't want people to be scared of me because I like being left alone. (No, I DON'T want to hurt anyone!)
Nope sorry you play video games, have used the internet and dont want 10 billion facebook friends. you must be a confirmed murderer.
On topic i'm having trouble believing the story about that "Victoria" woman (the teacher), but if it is true then holy crap, what a hero.
On December 16 2012 09:09 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: There's a lot of headlines coming out about how the kid was a "loner" and had aspergers. I really fucking hate it when the media has to say shit like, "he was a "loner"", or "he suffered from a personality disorder." People can be loners without wanting to kill children. People can have "disorders" without wanting to kill people. I don't want people to be scared of me because I like being left alone. (No, I DON'T want to hurt anyone!)
Nope sorry you play video games, have used the internet and dont want 10 billion facebook friends. you must be a confirmed murderer.
On topic i'm having trouble believing the story about that "Victoria" woman (the teacher), but if it is true then holy crap, what a hero.
Like 10 years ago maybe. Remember when video games were underground?
I kinda wish we could go back to that because of all the marketing BS. Maybe not though.
I'm sorry, I don't want to start a fight, I don't care about gun controls, to each their own, but I know that in Romania, kids have almost 0 chances of getting even a pistol, not to mention a semi-automatic rifle. News like these sicken me. Any retard can go haywire and kill a bunch of innocent people, because it's his right to own military equipment.
I feel pretty crestfallen that my human brethren are now killing children too. I'm pretty desensitized when I read up on grown adults dying in the news (because it happens all the time now), but killing sub 20 children? There is something very wrong on this planet.
I won't send 'best wishes' and all that nonsense to a country that openly advocates the uses of military weaponry by all its citizens, but I do feel regret for those children. They could have become Scientists or Doctors who change peoples lives.. What a waste.
On December 16 2012 10:54 NarAliya wrote: I feel pretty crestfallen that my human brethren are now killing children too. I'm pretty desensitized when I read up on grown adults dying in the news (because it happens all the time now), but killing sub 20 children? There is something very wrong on this planet.
I won't send 'best wishes' and all that nonsense to a country that openly advocates the uses of military weaponry by all its citizens, but I do feel regret for those children. They could have become Scientists or Doctors who change peoples lives.. What a waste.
yeah. save your best wishes for people who really need it.
On December 16 2012 10:54 NarAliya wrote: I feel pretty crestfallen that my human brethren are now killing children too. I'm pretty desensitized when I read up on grown adults dying in the news (because it happens all the time now), but killing sub 20 children? There is something very wrong on this planet.
I won't send 'best wishes' and all that nonsense to a country that openly advocates the uses of military weaponry by all its citizens, but I do feel regret for those children. They could have become Scientists or Doctors who change peoples lives.. What a waste.
yeah. save your best wishes for people who really need it.
How silly.
It seems you have a problem with what I've said. This isn't the first televised massacre in America, I'm just saying it is fruitless to send such wishes when it will happen again unless something changes.
Yes, I do. It is an impossibly stupid thing to say about the death of children who have absolutely nothing to do with anything you've said. They're only responsibility in what has happened was being at school and being shot.
On December 16 2012 09:09 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: There's a lot of headlines coming out about how the kid was a "loner" and had aspergers. I really fucking hate it when the media has to say shit like, "he was a "loner"", or "he suffered from a personality disorder." People can be loners without wanting to kill children. People can have "disorders" without wanting to kill people. I don't want people to be scared of me because I like being left alone. (No, I DON'T want to hurt anyone!)
This autism/asperger thing is becoming the same sort of scapegoating we see with muslims or arabs.. Despicable.
On December 16 2012 11:19 Gene wrote: Yes, I do. It is an impossibly stupid thing to say about the death of children who have absolutely nothing to do with anything you've said. They're only responsibility in what has happened was being at school and being shot.
..but I do feel regret for those children. They could have become Scientists or Doctors who change peoples lives.. What a waste.
Please read.
-_-
And even if I wanted to, I couldn't send 'best wishes' to people who are dead.
There are too many labels. Everyone but normal/average people deserve to have a stigma! You would think being in the 50th percentile of anything were like winning the lotto. The society of the majority rules where the minority is always in the wrong/doesn't matter. Every type of person has done "messed up things," but it never seems to really register until someone unlike you does it, be it race or personality. One day, I want to hear what's wrong with normal people. Why aren't they better? What are their inhibitors? Too few labels and not enough stigmas if you ask me.
On December 16 2012 11:57 playa wrote: There are too many labels. Everyone but normal/average people deserve to have a stigma! You would think being in the 50th percentile of anything were like winning the lotto. The society of the majority rules where the minority is always in the wrong/doesn't matter. Every type of person has done "messed up things," but it never seems to really register until someone unlike you does it, be it race or personality. One day, I want to hear what's wrong with normal people. Why aren't they better? What are their inhibitors? Too few labels and not enough stigmas if you ask me.
There's a difference between doing messed up things and hurting others in the very basic sense of the word. When you go and shoot children, it's not a labeling issue, it's a "this needs to not happen again" issue. And so far, it seems that it's not working out.
There's no "best wishes" to send, those parents who lost their children will never be the same again, their lives are pretty much over. I feel sorry for what happened. But as others have said... it's going to happen again, because this can't be stopped.
They really need to stop playing it on the news 24/7. We are bound to have another copycat shooting within the next 3 weeks. They keep glorifying the shooters picture and talking about him. Its only gonna give more ideas to those who are also sick out there. As for some people saying that its crazy that he was able to get the guns, the guns were owned by his mother, whom he had killed. He then took the three pistols and conducted his spree
On December 16 2012 09:09 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: There's a lot of headlines coming out about how the kid was a "loner" and had aspergers. I really fucking hate it when the media has to say shit like, "he was a "loner"", or "he suffered from a personality disorder." People can be loners without wanting to kill children. People can have "disorders" without wanting to kill people. I don't want people to be scared of me because I like being left alone. (No, I DON'T want to hurt anyone!)
It's just the preference of Western society talking since the majority happens to be extroverts instead of introverts. If it would had happened in an Asia country no one would talk about it this way since they prefer a more introvert perspective to life where as extroverts are considered as the strange ones.
Was this guy even a true introvert though? He might not had been hanging with the cool guys in school, but he did attend LAN's and such, true introverts don't really spend time with larger groups at all. I don't think you could call him pure introvert.
And now I hear WBC is coming out here to picket at the funeral for these children. Apparently they believe this is "god's punishment for Connecticut legalizing gay marriage."
Who's with me on forming a blockade so the families of the victims don't have to see this sickening nonsense?
On December 16 2012 14:50 tMomiji wrote: And now I hear WBC is coming out here to picket at the funeral for these children. Apparently they believe this is "god's punishment for Connecticut legalizing gay marriage."
Who's with me on forming a blockade so the families of the victims don't have to see this sickening nonsense?
That is what WBC wants they are trolls you don't feed trolls.
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
The media has gone to utter shit in this country. The fact that they interviewed children after what happened yesterday is absolutely despicable. The reporters who interviewed these children should be thrown in jail. Child abuse is what it is.
On December 16 2012 05:32 Brosy wrote: I've been pretty disgusted with how the media just jumped on any rumor regarding the killer and then put it out as some kind of fact. Mistaking the killer, saying that the killers mother was a teacher/connected to the elementary school, etc. I just find it utterly disgusting that media outlets are so focused on be the first to break information that they don't bother to check their facts and then those "journalists" who gave the incorrect information just sort of shrug their shoulders and continue trying to always be the first to break "news"
The media has gone to utter shit in this country. The fact that they interviewed children after what happened yesterday is absolutely despicable. The reporters who interviewed these children should be thrown in jail. Child abuse is what it is.
It is pretty sick. I've been involved in very small media, mostly just college level production of news. In my communication ethics class this would come up a lot. Do you interview a child in this situation?
The sick truth is you have to get ratings to keep your job and make your boss happy. And sadly that means doing this type of coverage. If you don't interview the children and victims of the crime then they change the channel and switch to another channel that does.
Personally I can't even stand to watch the coverage. It's really sick.
On December 16 2012 11:58 Gene wrote: following it up with your 'regrets' doesn't take back what you had said. I don't understand what more you intend I read.
'Take back'? Dude I'm not sending 'best wishes' and that's the end of it. You can't condemn me.
Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
I don't think anything can top this post. I love Morgan Freeman.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
I don't think anything can top this post. I love Morgan Freeman.
I think whenever something like this happens, one should keep some perspective.
This event is one tragedy in a million tragedies happening every day, to be sure. The event called 9/11 was remarkable for a number of things, least of which the number of people killed. (Perhaps the number of people killed in such a small area on the earth within a certain time frame, among other things).
The young man who committed the murders and then shot himself was more than likely one of many mentally ill / unstable / socially excluded people in this increasingly isolated modern world. He hardly deserves to be called a "sick fuck", or anything along those derogatory lines - crazy, insane etc - as has been done by countless people of note. Any one of us could have been him, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, environment, with worse luck, different families, and peer groups, or otherwise.
The developed world continues to marginalise such people, continuing a legacy of asylums where people were sent to rot. There have been muted calls to improve legislation, attitudes, support systems, following this particular incident. I suspect however that the general consensus is that, much like attitudes towards the gun control argument, it is "too early" to discuss. How ridiculous.
We honour the dead by doing whatever we can to prevent the next event from happening. This tragedy is something that can turn into more than just a sum of its contributing factors, with concerted effort, with the goal of averting the next. The perspective we should take I believe is that each of us is the same as the next - we are the same as the killer, the same as the children who lost their lives, and the same as the families who have been affected. With this in mind, how should we respond?
With this perspective, the points of contention around gun control become moot, and attitudes we hold towards "crazies" become disturbing. I think we should consider our perspective very carefully.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
I don't think anything can top this post. I love Morgan Freeman.
On December 16 2012 14:50 tMomiji wrote: And now I hear WBC is coming out here to picket at the funeral for these children. Apparently they believe this is "god's punishment for Connecticut legalizing gay marriage."
Who's with me on forming a blockade so the families of the victims don't have to see this sickening nonsense?
It's their Constitutional right to do it, but I think if one of the father's punches them in the face the Judge wouldn't sentence too harshly.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
I don't think anything can top this post. I love Morgan Freeman.
"Celebs.gather.com"? Who will use that as a respectable source?
Does it even matter? Whoever said it is the most right person in the history of time.
People do shit like this because they know they'll get this kind of attention. Fuck, even ESPN is talking about it while they're analyzing how Pittsburgh offense has been struggling. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I bet, just like whoever said that mentioned, no one can name a single victim of the shooting. Anyone who can will forget in a month. This guy will still be talked about years from now as one of the, if not the deadliest shootings of all time. 20 kids dead. Our media will NOT let that go. And it's fucking ridiculous, because now people on the edge of doing stuff like this are seeing how much this guy is being practically worshiped and want to do it too.
All I'm reading about lately is the victims, idk. Seems pretty legit. I've only heard the name Adam Lanza from this thread tbh. But I only have the internet to work with, not TV.
On December 17 2012 03:13 Gene wrote: All I'm reading about lately is the victims, idk. Seems pretty legit. I've only heard the name Adam Lanza from this thread tbh. But I only have the internet to work with, not TV.
Think in historical context, how many famous murderers can you think of that have been popularized? Now pause and try to name a single one of their victims.
I know, but I'm surprised by the exact opposite inthis situation. I'm hearing more about the victims, is what I'm saying. But I guess the grain of salt here is that I don't have TV to really lay it on thick with the killer angle.
On December 17 2012 03:13 Gene wrote: All I'm reading about lately is the victims, idk. Seems pretty legit. I've only heard the name Adam Lanza from this thread tbh. But I only have the internet to work with, not TV.
There are still tons of news reports like this shit that pisses me off:
On December 17 2012 03:18 Gene wrote: I know, but I'm surprised by the exact opposite inthis situation. I'm hearing more about the victims, is what I'm saying. But I guess the grain of salt here is that I don't have TV to really lay it on thick with the killer angle.
I'm just trying to prove by empirical evidence that this is exactly what's going to happen as time goes by, you won't remember the victim's names either, because there is no need to unless there is some personal stake. The media falsely creates a persona and mystique around the killer and makes him out to be a glorified anti hero, somebody that you are personally interested in, and that's why history always remembers the killers and not the victims.
The truth of the matter is, our lives are all ultimately insignificant, and wallow in mundane mediocrity. Only the lucky few get to be involved with anything significant. We all want to be remembered by history and talked about and matter, and we as a species are so fundamentally attracted to the exceptional and the distinctive, regardless of whether it's good or bad. It's so difficult to do anything positive, to contribute and work hard to accomplish something you can be proud of, and in the end you are still likely to be forgotten by society simply because you were unpopular or didn't fit in with the zeitgeist. Yet it's infinitely easier to do something BAD, something so fundamentally appalling that EVERYONE will remember you. That's what's so fundamentally disturbing about the media coverage.
On December 17 2012 03:13 Gene wrote: All I'm reading about lately is the victims, idk. Seems pretty legit. I've only heard the name Adam Lanza from this thread tbh. But I only have the internet to work with, not TV.
Think in historical context, how many famous murderers can you think of that have been popularized? Now pause and try to name a single one of their victims.
Abe Lincoln doesn't count.
Ferdanand of Austria Hungary that sparked the first World War, I don't even remember who did it except it was some religious serbian group or something/
On December 17 2012 03:13 Gene wrote: All I'm reading about lately is the victims, idk. Seems pretty legit. I've only heard the name Adam Lanza from this thread tbh. But I only have the internet to work with, not TV.
Think in historical context, how many famous murderers can you think of that have been popularized? Now pause and try to name a single one of their victims.
Abe Lincoln doesn't count.
Ferdanand of Austria Hungary that sparked the first World War, I don't even remember who did it except it was some religious serbian group or something/
That's because the murderer wasn't the intrigue of the issue, when there's an entire war following to get masochistic joy out of glorifying other mass murderers out of and death becomes a statistic.
On December 17 2012 03:18 Gene wrote: I know, but I'm surprised by the exact opposite inthis situation. I'm hearing more about the victims, is what I'm saying. But I guess the grain of salt here is that I don't have TV to really lay it on thick with the killer angle.
I'm just trying to prove by empirical evidence that this is exactly what's going to happen as time goes by, you won't remember the victim's names either, because there is no need to unless there is some personal stake. The media falsely creates a persona and mystique around the killer and makes him out to be a glorified anti hero, somebody that you are personally interested in, and that's why history always remembers the killers and not the victims.
The truth of the matter is, our lives are all ultimately insignificant, and wallow in mundane mediocrity. Only the lucky few get to be involved with anything significant. We all want to be remembered by history and talked about and matter, and we as a species are so fundamentally attracted to the exceptional and the distinctive, regardless of whether it's good or bad. It's so difficult to do anything positive, to contribute and work hard to accomplish something you can be proud of, and in the end you are still likely to be forgotten by society simply because you were unpopular or didn't fit in with the zeitgeist. Yet it's infinitely easier to do something BAD, something so fundamentally appalling that EVERYONE will remember you. That's what's so fundamentally disturbing about the media coverage.
I havnt really posted in this thread cause theres really not much to say that hasnt been said already but this post is something that I think about a lot. It is so easy to become immortalized in history for doing something bad and its next to impossible to achieve that same amount of fame doing something good.
On December 17 2012 03:18 Gene wrote: I know, but I'm surprised by the exact opposite inthis situation. I'm hearing more about the victims, is what I'm saying. But I guess the grain of salt here is that I don't have TV to really lay it on thick with the killer angle.
I'm just trying to prove by empirical evidence that this is exactly what's going to happen as time goes by, you won't remember the victim's names either, because there is no need to unless there is some personal stake. The media falsely creates a persona and mystique around the killer and makes him out to be a glorified anti hero, somebody that you are personally interested in, and that's why history always remembers the killers and not the victims.
The truth of the matter is, our lives are all ultimately insignificant, and wallow in mundane mediocrity. Only the lucky few get to be involved with anything significant. We all want to be remembered by history and talked about and matter, and we as a species are so fundamentally attracted to the exceptional and the distinctive, regardless of whether it's good or bad. It's so difficult to do anything positive, to contribute and work hard to accomplish something you can be proud of, and in the end you are still likely to be forgotten by society simply because you were unpopular or didn't fit in with the zeitgeist. Yet it's infinitely easier to do something BAD, something so fundamentally appalling that EVERYONE will remember you. That's what's so fundamentally disturbing about the media coverage.
I havnt really posted in this thread cause theres really not much to say that hasnt been said already but this post is something that I think about a lot. It is so easy to become immortalized in history for doing something bad and its next to impossible to achieve that same amount of fame doing something good.
I was planning to write another retardedly long post about reasoning and ethics of suicide by cop and mass shootings in the same manner as this one. But since it didn't really provoke much reaction I figured people weren't interested in this sort of a thing.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Brilliant, just brilliant. He hit the nail on the head with that piece of writing.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Tim Ferriss backs this up in 4HWW. He calls it "selective ignorance" and says it's crucial to do if you want to be anything in life. You don't make yourself a more productive citizen or a better human being by constantly inhaling all the information being thrown at you. You treat information like food - intake enough at the right time to keep going; too much is just going to bog you down. We would all do ourselves a service by not listening to the news half as much as we do now, or, ideally, never.
Westboro Baptist Church is really trying to one-up Hitler in the household-name asshole category. They're going to fucking picket (or rather, get close as they can and heckle).
What really amazed me in an interview I watched with one of the parents...
Apparently while a teacher was attempting to defend her students(she ended up being shot in the process) all of the kids bum rushed the door and out of the room. One of the students running out of the room described the sound as 'hammers falling on the floor-- they kept running until they hit the main road and down the street. The main point is..
Do kids understand what guns sound like/can do in a situation like this because of video games(COD etc.)?
The student whose parents were in the interview was 'scared that the gunman was going to come back and get him' even in his own home. From a psychological standpoint do kids understand the meaning of death in real life compared to a video game? Honestly I see video games being both a positive and negative factor in this day in age. And if knowing the sound of a gun because of a video game can save at least one life so be it.
On December 17 2012 03:18 Gene wrote: I know, but I'm surprised by the exact opposite inthis situation. I'm hearing more about the victims, is what I'm saying. But I guess the grain of salt here is that I don't have TV to really lay it on thick with the killer angle.
I'm just trying to prove by empirical evidence that this is exactly what's going to happen as time goes by, you won't remember the victim's names either, because there is no need to unless there is some personal stake. The media falsely creates a persona and mystique around the killer and makes him out to be a glorified anti hero, somebody that you are personally interested in, and that's why history always remembers the killers and not the victims.
The truth of the matter is, our lives are all ultimately insignificant, and wallow in mundane mediocrity. Only the lucky few get to be involved with anything significant. We all want to be remembered by history and talked about and matter, and we as a species are so fundamentally attracted to the exceptional and the distinctive, regardless of whether it's good or bad. It's so difficult to do anything positive, to contribute and work hard to accomplish something you can be proud of, and in the end you are still likely to be forgotten by society simply because you were unpopular or didn't fit in with the zeitgeist. Yet it's infinitely easier to do something BAD, something so fundamentally appalling that EVERYONE will remember you. That's what's so fundamentally disturbing about the media coverage.
I agree with the spirit of your thoughts on the subject, but I'm not sure you are leveling blame in the proper manner. Our media saturated/dominated culture certainly lends itself to certain sorts of exploitative, fame-garnering actions or at the very least a tacit understanding by all that if one does something dramatic, a huge number of people will know about it via pervasive social and traditional media exposure. But you've conflated the track of human history with our contemporary media issues when you group them together so, and I think you are more directly speaking to an inherent problem in "history" rather than contemporary media trends (though they certainly make things worse, imo) History as we write it and read it revolves around names, be them names of places, people, and things. Consequently, a fair bit of information falls by the wayside in favor of these name-centric historical perspectives. Our remembrance of killers over their victims is a pretty good indicator of this very phenomena, as the historical entry for "was murdered by a famous killer" is far less salient than "killed a ton of people".
I guess my point is that while contemporary media certainly influences a fair bit of cultural velocity/temperament, I think the general manner with which we understand and call upon history in the traditional sense is perhaps even more worthy of our criticism.
I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Maybe I completely forgot about it then, or my school was out of the ordinary.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Maybe I completely forgot about it then, or my school was out of the ordinary.
If you ask your parents they might tell you about the air raid drills they used to do?
Teachers were also taught on how to lockdown the school in case of a then suspected Russian invasion. Our current lockdown protocols are basically built around that. Dont even think they have been improved much either.
Do you remember your teachers telling you that in case of an emergency to lineup against the wall that is NOT in direct view of the door? Usually the same wall the door is on.
I am touched by her actions....telling her students to go to a closet and then shielding them while she died tragically taking shots from the psycho....
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Brilliant, just brilliant. He hit the nail on the head with that piece of writing.
Typical celebrity bla-bla. He only suggests symbolic solutions, no causal. He's like Obama, secretly not caring at all about a real solution and just enjoying his position. I hate such people.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Brilliant, just brilliant. He hit the nail on the head with that piece of writing.
Typical celebrity bla-bla. He only suggests symbolic solutions, no causal. He's like Obama, secretly not caring at all about a real solution and just enjoying his position. I hate such people.
On December 16 2012 20:05 lonelyPotato wrote: Morgan Freeman's Opinion, thought I would post it up xD
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."
Brilliant, just brilliant. He hit the nail on the head with that piece of writing.
Typical celebrity bla-bla. He only suggests symbolic solutions, no causal. He's like Obama, secretly not caring at all about a real solution and just enjoying his position. I hate such people.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
Unless you have some kind of proof, please refrain from making ridiculous statements like that.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
Unless you have some kind of proof, please refrain from making ridiculous statements like that.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
Unless you have some kind of proof, please refrain from making ridiculous statements like that.
Are you even serious? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are misinformed. An independent report was done and it states that only 2% of victims are actually militants.
The second issue is the "double tap" which is considered a war crime. Double tapping is when they fire one missile which kills 1-3 people, the natural reaction is for people and medical officials to gather around to help the wounded so the USA fires a second missile on the rescuers causing the deaths of 20-50 people.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
Unless you have some kind of proof, please refrain from making ridiculous statements like that.
Are you even serious? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are misinformed. An independent report was done and it states that only 2% of victims are actually militants.
The second issue is the "double tap" which is considered a war crime. Double tapping is when they fire one missile which kills 1-3 people, the natural reaction is for people and medical officials to gather around to help the wounded so the USA fires a second missile on the rescuers causing the deaths of 20-50 people.
I'm sorry, but that's not an "independent" report. Pun not intended.
Also, is there a single other source that substantiates this claim? Every single remotely credible thing I found through google cites to this report. There is no other documentation that I can find. I would be rather appalled if they were using this strategy on a routine basis.
The source as stated by this report is a handful of Pakistanis who have heard stories of this happening, and a few who claimed they saw it. This sounds like a rumor to me. Care to debunk that conclusion?
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I think it depends on the time and area. I went to school in northern Michigan in a rural area, in the '90s. Around hunting season kids would bring there guns and show them off.. Nothing ever close to a lock down plan
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
I always tell my coworkers how Afghanistan would probably be safer than the US. (I'm in the military) We had a lot of shootings in the past week in my city. People got shot up in our mall last week. *face palm*
Obama's drone strikes have killed thousands of people and 100's of children. You're much safer here.
Unless you have some kind of proof, please refrain from making ridiculous statements like that.
On December 17 2012 07:46 imallinson wrote: I'm curious about schools having 'lockdown plans' for situations like this. I used to live in the US until I was 8 (1998) and we never had anything like that. Is this a fairly new thing because I was really surprised and pretty depressed that elementary schools needed to have something like that.
I was in grade school in the early 90's and we had lockdown plans.
EDIT: They were probably not as rehearsed as they are now though.
Yeah I graduated High School in 2005. We had lockdown drills. Not that many ( I can't even remember what year) I never feared for my life while getting my edu-ma-cation though. We had our typical bomb threats, but nobody took them seriously. It's pretty sad though how violent this country can really be.
Sick.
On December 18 2012 08:09 rezoacken wrote: And still... I agree with him. Hiding details about the murderer while caring for someone like Victoria Soto is a part of a solution.
On a second thought, I agree on that opinion from a anonymous person without the conclusion. It could be better with more sane media, but the individual can not influence it.
On December 18 2012 08:09 rezoacken wrote: And still... I agree with him. Hiding details about the murderer while caring for someone like Victoria Soto is a part of a solution.
On a second thought, I agree on that opinion from a anonymous person without the conclusion. It could be better with more sane media, but the individual can not influence it.
Wasn't there a poll on TL where it turned out a large percentage of TL'ers are sick bastards who'd rather be remembered for something horrible than not remembered at all? I'll see if I can find it.
The media deserves a large share of the blame for these sorts of mass killings. Nowadays they cover it so extensively and for so long that it becomes a route to fame. Any nut that wants to go down in a blaze of glory knows they can kill a dozen people then themselves and guarantee their 15 minutes.
On December 18 2012 19:31 Mallard86 wrote: The media deserves a large share of the blame for these sorts of mass killings. Nowadays they cover it so extensively and for so long that it becomes a route to fame. Any nut that wants to go down in a blaze of glory knows they can kill a dozen people then themselves and guarantee their 15 minutes.
I agree with this, video is relevant (mostly the last 70 seconds of the clip)
I was just watching MNBC or whatever it is, and there's this fat dickfuckhead lobbying about how he's trying to get a bill passed to prevent ALL peoples with any mental illness or any instability to not be allowed to purchase/own a gun. My thinking is if that's okay, then any and all people with mental illness's won't be able to drive, cut food, or pretty much anything ever again.
People didn't start magically dying because guns were invented, people have been killing other people with their bare fucking hands for as long as the specie has been around.
On December 18 2012 21:49 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: I was just watching MNBC or whatever it is, and there's this fat dickfuckhead lobbying about how he's trying to get a bill passed to prevent ALL peoples with any mental illness or any instability to not be allowed to purchase/own a gun. My thinking is if that's okay, then any and all people with mental illness's won't be able to drive, cut food, or pretty much anything ever again.
People didn't start magically dying because guns were invented, people have been killing other people with their bare fucking hands for as long as the specie has been around.
On December 18 2012 21:49 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: I was just watching MNBC or whatever it is, and there's this fat dickfuckhead lobbying about how he's trying to get a bill passed to prevent ALL peoples with any mental illness or any instability to not be allowed to purchase/own a gun. My thinking is if that's okay, then any and all people with mental illness's won't be able to drive, cut food, or pretty much anything ever again.
People didn't start magically dying because guns were invented, people have been killing other people with their bare fucking hands for as long as the specie has been around.
They guy died but took the lives of so many children with him. It is tragic and heartbreaking. But the apathy and lack of interest towards the killing of children as "collateral damage" of sorts by drones is equally appalling.
This was a guy with a history of mental illness and instability. But why are completely sane people not even willing to admit some of the other atrocities going on in the world?
On December 18 2012 08:09 rezoacken wrote: And still... I agree with him. Hiding details about the murderer while caring for someone like Victoria Soto is a part of a solution.
On a second thought, I agree on that opinion from a anonymous person without the conclusion. It could be better with more sane media, but the individual can not influence it.
Wasn't there a poll on TL where it turned out a large percentage of TL'ers are sick bastards who'd rather be remembered for something horrible than not remembered at all? I'll see if I can find it.
Please find it, I'd like to know what kind of community I am in.
CNN ran some program an hour or two ago pointing out how the killer had played violent video games like Starcraft and Warcraft 3. They had some researcher on screen telling about how "all studies" agree on the same conclusion; that video games are only breeding violence and was a contributor to the shooting.
To CNN's credit, the reporter seemed skeptical and asked if the same hadn't been said and later disproven about heavy metal music and violent movies.
Still, it sickens me that a tragedy like this is used so brazenly as a political platform. And that it's still being reported on around the clock on nearly every news channel.
Edit: And yes, Starcraft and Warcraft 3 were mentioned by name. Starcraft was described on air as "a violent game where you play a war commander, in space."
On December 18 2012 08:09 rezoacken wrote: And still... I agree with him. Hiding details about the murderer while caring for someone like Victoria Soto is a part of a solution.
On a second thought, I agree on that opinion from a anonymous person without the conclusion. It could be better with more sane media, but the individual can not influence it.
Wasn't there a poll on TL where it turned out a large percentage of TL'ers are sick bastards who'd rather be remembered for something horrible than not remembered at all? I'll see if I can find it.
Please find it, I'd like to know what kind of community I am in.
Sorry couldn't find it, but I'm pretty sure there was one. It wasn't a majority of people who thought that way, but still a surprisingly large percentage. I wonder what those people would say now.
On December 19 2012 02:28 LoLAdriankat wrote: Dynasty Warriors was also targeted by media outlets because the shooter was a fan of it. Of all games, huh?
Oh that Japanese hack and slash based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms, a Chinese historical period war piece and ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY READ BOOKS IN ASIA is clearly the cause.
I don't think average citizens need to arm themselves with assault rifles. It's a terrible thing he did; shame this couldn't have been stopped before it happened. Pray for those Children, the teachers the shooter's mother, and i guess even him. May they rest in peace.
On December 19 2012 02:15 Duka wrote: CNN ran some program an hour or two ago pointing out how the killer had played violent video games like Starcraft and Warcraft 3. They had some researcher on screen telling about how "all studies" agree on the same conclusion; that video games are only breeding violence and was a contributor to the shooting.
To CNN's credit, the reporter seemed skeptical and asked if the same hadn't been said and later disproven about heavy metal music and violent movies.
Still, it sickens me that a tragedy like this is used so brazenly as a political platform. And that it's still being reported on around the clock on nearly every news channel.
Edit: And yes, Starcraft and Warcraft 3 were mentioned by name. Starcraft was described on air as "a violent game where you play a war commander, in space."
Well...it is a violent game where you play a war commander in space. The thing about CNN is they have to fill air time, while selectively covering world events based on ratings appeal. While this is still fresh they'll throw EVERY angle at you. I saw them spend 2 hours on a gun debate, 1 hour on a debate over elementary school security, and about 5 minutes talking about mental health. T.T
On December 18 2012 08:09 rezoacken wrote: And still... I agree with him. Hiding details about the murderer while caring for someone like Victoria Soto is a part of a solution.
On a second thought, I agree on that opinion from a anonymous person without the conclusion. It could be better with more sane media, but the individual can not influence it.
Wasn't there a poll on TL where it turned out a large percentage of TL'ers are sick bastards who'd rather be remembered for something horrible than not remembered at all? I'll see if I can find it.
Please find it, I'd like to know what kind of community I am in.
Sorry couldn't find it, but I'm pretty sure there was one. It wasn't a majority of people who thought that way, but still a surprisingly large percentage. I wonder what those people would say now.
Come on... The choices were hated, but remembered, or entirely forgotten by everyone (including those who knew you - basically being erased from memory). Think about it. That also means never having children, never accomplishing a single memorable thing, never living, essentially. That poll was bullshit, and used lack of choice to force a negative response.
EDIT: Or, what some people perceive as a negative response. Virtually everyone is hated by someone. Some of us, because we're American/European/Middle Eastern, or because of our skin colour, or because of some other bullshit. We're already hated. Being remembered is all we have left.
Ya just saw this on CNN 5min ago and I was going to post about it in this thread immediately. Said the shooter's mom invited his friends over to play video games with him and the main ones they played were Warcraft3 and Starcraft. A friend then said that the shooter wasn't very into Warcraft3 and wasn't very good but picked up on Starcraft very fast.
Blown away that they would actually waste their time and try to connect video games, ffs RTS ones like Warcraft/Starcraft, and a mass murder at an elementary school. They are literally just trying to grab at strings for any reason for this to happen. It was just a crazy guy that had access to guns no more. Sometimes there isn't reasons.
On December 19 2012 05:08 dUTtrOACh wrote: I wonder what his race and rank were, now...
Beware, he might be called a "Silver Ranked Commander Of Alien Forces Aiming To Destroying All Human Life On Earth" if it gets public.
It was on CNN
They didn't talk about his rank on the ladder of slaughtering other humans / his achievements in the eternal war of light and darkness yet. Edit: Should we take this stuff into a different thread? Now that I think of it it doesn't seem much more appropriate than the gun control topic. =S
On December 19 2012 05:08 dUTtrOACh wrote: I wonder what his race and rank were, now...
Beware, he might be called a "Silver Ranked Commander Of Alien Forces Aiming To Destroying All Human Life On Earth" if it gets public.
It was on CNN
They didn't talk about his rank on the ladder of slaughtering other humans / his achievements in the eternal war of light and darkness yet. Edit: Should we take this stuff into a different thread? Now that I think of it it doesn't seem much more appropriate than the gun control topic. =S
Nah this is more about the killer. None of us are stupid enough to believe that Starcraft causes people to shoot Kindergatners and Elementary School kids. I just find it surprising that people can dig up the identity of some map hacker's smurf account or w/e, but this dude's BNet rank/ID are forever a mystery. It's not like he played LAN only
On December 19 2012 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: CNN is no better than Fox nowadays; they just happen to be biased for the other side (and try to be more covert about it).
On December 19 2012 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: CNN is no better than Fox nowadays; they just happen to be biased for the other side (and try to be more covert about it).
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
^
MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity.
Apparently playing a videogame with friends at school makes you a mass murder. I'd like to say your mainstream media stations are corrupt liars which try to manipulate peoples perception but the big news stations here are on the same train. The first thing I've heard (From an Austrian TV report) of the shooting was that one of his hobbies was playing videogames. Nice finding, every teenager today more or less plays "violent videogames". Correlation and Causalisation is really hard to understand, isn't it?
On December 19 2012 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: CNN is no better than Fox nowadays; they just happen to be biased for the other side (and try to be more covert about it).
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
^
MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity.
How sick is it we know our media is beyond corrupt, our government is beyond corrupt, our people are being poisoned with just about every pill and chemical they can think of through water/food/air/entertainment and yet nothing is done...?
*Edit* ...and to the video above, I want to punch that "expert" square in his face. What a bunch of senseless posturing so the viewer is convinced he's someone who knows what he's talking about. What's worse is BS like this actually reaches people and they believe it.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
On December 19 2012 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: CNN is no better than Fox nowadays; they just happen to be biased for the other side (and try to be more covert about it).
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
^
MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity.
How sick is it we know our media is beyond corrupt, our government is beyond corrupt, our people are being poisoned with just about every pill and chemical they can think of through water/food/air/entertainment and yet nothing is done...?
*Edit* ...and to the video above, I want to punch that "expert" square in his face. What a bunch of senseless posturing so the viewer is convinced he's someone who knows what he's talking about. What's worse is BS like this actually reaches people and they believe it.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
From a first world perspective, I really think that shit's not that bad. Yeah, things are fucked up, but they've always been fucked up. The government in particular is better than most historical models, and even though we have terrible tragedies like this, on the whole we are living longer, healthier lives and are wealthier than we have ever been.
Child mortality has seen unbelievable improvement. There are millions of people who got to live through their childhood who would have died if they were born just a century ago. Under - 5 (infant) mortality rate (for whites) per 1000 has dropped in the past 100 years from 96 to 6. It was over 10% in 1900!
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere.
The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent?
On December 19 2012 05:20 phosphorylation wrote: CNN is no better than Fox nowadays; they just happen to be biased for the other side (and try to be more covert about it).
I disagree; I think CNN is just incompetent.
^
MSNBC is more the Fox equivalent, though most media sources are treating this story with equal stupidity.
How sick is it we know our media is beyond corrupt, our government is beyond corrupt, our people are being poisoned with just about every pill and chemical they can think of through water/food/air/entertainment and yet nothing is done...?
*Edit* ...and to the video above, I want to punch that "expert" square in his face. What a bunch of senseless posturing so the viewer is convinced he's someone who knows what he's talking about. What's worse is BS like this actually reaches people and they believe it.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
From a first world perspective, I really think that shit's not that bad. Yeah, things are fucked up, but they've always been fucked up. The government in particular is better than most historical models, and even though we have terrible tragedies like this, on the whole we are living longer, healthier lives and are wealthier than we have ever been.
Child mortality has seen unbelievable improvement. There are millions of people who got to live through their childhood who would have died if they were born just a century ago. Under - 5 (infant) mortality rate (for whites) per 1000 has dropped in the past 100 years from 96 to 6. It was over 10% in 1900!
Sorry if this is slightly OT but I wanted to say something positive in such a dark thread.
Why are the deaths for whites counted separately from the deaths for blacks? Also, is there any particular reason you chose not to present the change in infant mortality rates for blacks over the past 100 years? How does that even relate to the quote? I understand the first paragraph.
EDIT: After checking the tables on that link it seems as if there's an almost 3:1 ratio of Black:White infant mortality. If you were trying to cheer us up I don't know if it worked.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere.
The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent?
I bet the killer not only played Starcraft, but has also watched CNN mindless coverage of current events, regularly saw movies, read books, used the toilet multiple times a day and even drank water! Clearly these make mass murders...oh wait, you mean correlation does not equal causation. CNN: report now, think later.
Also, I wonder if they have read what twitter thinks about all this, as it seems like they spend more time and effort in reporting on what twitter thinks of everything, than doing real journalism. CNN is the news channel for the lowest common denominator.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere.
The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent?
...............What?
You said you would not be angry....... because it wouldn't happen.
That's like being asked the question (in 1992): "Would you be angry if terrorists attacked the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing thousands of people?"
And you respond with: "No, I wouldn't be angry, because it wouldn't happen."
Do you see what I mean now? I was only asking for clarification on what you actually think. If you think it's not important, that's cool, but I'd still like to know since you bothered answering in the first place.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere.
The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent?
...............What?
You said you would not be angry....... because it wouldn't happen.
That's like being asked the question: "Would you be angry if terrorists attacked the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing thousands of people?"
And you respond with: "No, I wouldn't be angry, because it wouldn't happen."
Do you see what I mean now? I was only asking for clarification on what you actually think. If you think it's not important, that's cool, but I'd still like to know since you bothered answering in the first place.
You missed the word "tried". They "tried" to take some action.
To use your example(And great job using 9/11 as a fucking example) "Would you be angry if terrorists TRIED to attack a city, killing thousands of people?" To which I respond: No, because they would fail.
How angry would TL be if they actually tried to take some action to stop SC or video games as a result of these morons?
Not angry at all because that would be stupid and would never go anywhere.
The hypothetical scenario Crooked presented didn't include a video game ban that went nowhere. Are you suggesting that you would be angry by intentionally making the question you're being asked irrellevent?
...............What?
You said you would not be angry....... because it wouldn't happen.
That's like being asked the question: "Would you be angry if terrorists attacked the World Trade Center's twin towers, killing thousands of people?"
And you respond with: "No, I wouldn't be angry, because it wouldn't happen."
Do you see what I mean now? I was only asking for clarification on what you actually think. If you think it's not important, that's cool, but I'd still like to know since you bothered answering in the first place.
You missed the word "tried". They "tried" to take some action.
To use your example(And great job using 9/11 as a fucking example) "Would you be angry if terrorists TRIED to attack a city, killing thousands of people?" To which I respond: No, because they would fail.
9/11 - Easy reference point.
OK. I think I understand your answer. You're clairvoyant and know the outcomes of things before they happen. All attempts to reduce violence in the media will fail. It turns out we love violence. Gotcha.
EDIT: I suppose for those of us who would actually be angered by the attempt, you'd have to be thankful for our lack of indifference and willingness to stand up for our love of violence.
EDIT2: I also remember a certain emotional response that people had when they "tried" to enact SOPA.
That video was more promotional than harmful to the SC2 image. It was like a high paced trailer for SC2 (compared to the boring early game where you build workers during the first couple minutes).
I never really take CNN/Fox news etc. seriously. They are always trying to find a scapegoat and make a buck off exaggerated ideas.
That video was more promotional than harmful to the SC2 image. It was like a high paced trailer for SC2 (compared to the boring early game where you build workers during the first couple minutes).
I never really take CNN/Fox news etc. seriously. They are always trying to find a scapegoat and make a buck off exaggerated ideas.
That poor immortal sentry all-in . And that bio getting decimated by colossus is just heart-breaking.
EDIT: Oh, damn, they're roaches, and that immortal sentry attack got recalled. This video is a trip.
I see nothing wrong with the content of the report except that the tone is suggesting something far beyond what the content would indicate, and unfortunately a ton of people will eat that right up.
It's another case of the general public being unable to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of young male violent criminals like to play violent video games. Is it so shocking that someone with homicidal tendencies would enjoy acting on them in a virtual reality? Not really, it's what I would expect them to do and hopefully it satisfies their urge for violent crime.
Is it the game's fault when that person shoots up a school? No not really...what about the millions of other people who play the game and live normal, adjusted lives? But no, people won't see it that way. Something has to be blamed for this horrific tragedy, so why not something the baby boomer generation has never really understood the appeal of?
I see nothing wrong with the content of the report except that the tone is suggesting something far beyond what the content would indicate, and unfortunately a ton of people will eat that right up.
It's another case of the general public being unable to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of young male violent criminals like to play violent video games. Is it so shocking that someone with homicidal tendencies would enjoy acting on them in a virtual reality? Not really, it's what I would expect them to do and hopefully it satisfies their urge for violent crime.
Is it the game's fault when that person shoots up a school? No not really...what about the millions of other people who play the game and live normal, adjusted lives? But no, people won't see it that way. Something has to be blamed for this horrific tragedy, so why not something the baby boomer generation has never really understood the appeal of?
I just find it annoying that they rush to an explanation that's so clearly full of shit.
I mean seriously. If the shooter wanted to replicate StarCraft, he would have found a way to lift off the school and fly it to a corner of his town.
God I love the onion. Thanks for posting this link, it sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. Everyone has their preferred scapegoat, what we really need instead of blind conviction is a little humility.
I see nothing wrong with the content of the report except that the tone is suggesting something far beyond what the content would indicate, and unfortunately a ton of people will eat that right up.
It's another case of the general public being unable to tell the difference between correlation and causality. Yes, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, of young male violent criminals like to play violent video games. Is it so shocking that someone with homicidal tendencies would enjoy acting on them in a virtual reality? Not really, it's what I would expect them to do and hopefully it satisfies their urge for violent crime.
Is it the game's fault when that person shoots up a school? No not really...what about the millions of other people who play the game and live normal, adjusted lives? But no, people won't see it that way. Something has to be blamed for this horrific tragedy, so why not something the baby boomer generation has never really understood the appeal of?
I just find it annoying that they rush to an explanation that's so clearly full of shit.
I mean seriously. If the shooter wanted to replicate StarCraft, he would have found a way to lift off the school and fly it to a corner of his town.
Top down view strategy games are about as far detached from any sense of personal involvement or stake in the individual actions of characters in gaming as it gets before getting into the point and click puzzler territory, what the fuck were they thinking letting this man on the air -_- It's 1980s demonizing D&D all over again.
The media report on every implausible explanation and ignore the one rational people keep saying, that their coverage of school shootings incentivises them. Nobody with any sense thinks a strategy game played years ago means anything but the hypocrisy would be too much if they reported on how their continued coverage was the problem.
God I love the onion. Thanks for posting this link, it sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly. Everyone has their preferred scapegoat, what we really need instead of blind conviction is a little humility.
I agree. The onion, which ironically is a parody, is the most sensible media coverage about this so far.
Before people go all bunkers over this keep this in mind:
Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
The heavy hitter however, or the official blame seems to be on the gun laws for this one. They are the big losers at this, not video games.
On December 20 2012 01:19 Butterednuts wrote: OP, I have an update for you!
CNN is adding StarCraft II as a contributing factor for the school shooting.
This only further proves my point; any sane person today will call all the game bashing bullshit, no one takes this serious anymore, they are only doing this cause they believe it will draw attention, which now is mostly negative, even Forbes calls them out on it, it's that bad. What the hell are they thinking.
On December 20 2012 01:39 mdb wrote: Ok, I havent watched a lot of CNN, but I`ve always thought they are ok media, but after watching this...what a joke
But if he really played starcraft/warcraft I wonder what his nickname was, is it possible that he is someone from the community?
Why would you even care? Seriously, stop paying attention to these people.
On December 20 2012 01:39 mdb wrote: Ok, I havent watched a lot of CNN, but I`ve always thought they are ok media, but after watching this...what a joke
But if he really played starcraft/warcraft I wonder what his nickname was, is it possible that he is someone from the community?
Why would you even care? Seriously, stop paying attention to these people.
Back when I was on Newgrounds they had a member who carried out a school shooting in 2006. (They also had the dude that wanted to arson his school but they got his info through the site and arrested him, Wikipedia has a link to that thread). So it was kinda interesting to see his contributions before he died.
a big player in the SC2 scene should stand up for us. i think the ignorance of CNN is just so obscene that it makes me sick that people make these kinds of accusations.
I know why it happened. So he played Zerg, and he isbad, so he is really pissed that zerg is sooooo underpowered (as it really is) he tried to fungal the school.
In reality, this is a terible thing, and CNN,and the other sites are stupid. It is liek when CNN said that pro sc2 is gaming adiction. that was terible, and they shoudl interview Tastless more
Pretty sure no one takes 24/7 cable news seriously, only the evening news broadcast is watchable and that goes for all major stations with local affiliates.
I bet the small arms proliferation is very eger to find a good reason why this boy killed so many people. It would be very bad for them if more people in the USA would realize that having weapons to kill someone is a way bigger risk factor than playing a computer game...
Penn Gillette speaking well, against a bunch of women who insist on sensationalizing the subject while simultaneously talking about how terrible the media is for sensationalizing tragedies like this. I love it.
On December 24 2012 07:07 Gene wrote: penn looks like he's about to have a stroke. Those women are more homicide inducing than any of the crap they insist on spreading.
I agree. I like how Penn defends not only video games, but art and expression in general (likening these pop culture references that are constantly accused of causing school shootings to the works of Shakespeare in an appropriate analogy), and asking us to blame the shooters and their circumstances, rather than arbitrary references that everyone experiences and that everyone else has no problem coexisting with. And when he was forced to defend Asperger's... oh god.
I love Penn. Even though I don't always agree with what he says, like that we should deprioritytize gun control for safer pools (lets be honest, why not both?). But he has a way of making his points that always seems very sensible, and he's very quick on calling out bullshit .
On December 20 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
I used to listen to CNN on the radio while driving, but fuck em. I'm not supporting them for bullshit coverage like this. They are so disconnected from something that is incredibly common these days, and it just destroys their credibility. It's like I'm hearing about the internet being a series of tubes all over again.
Jesus Christ, how can you have a good discussion when everyone is screaming at the same time? Was amazing when that one woman tried to blame Aspergers for the shootings. LOL.
Symptomatic of the society we have created. You can either try blaming some intangible evil like the establishment wants you to, or you can just blame society and yourself for your silent consent in letting things go on like they have for way too long.
There is no evil, there are only people deprived of their basic human needs. Given enough time, they will lose all sense of empathy and commit horrible deeds like this.
You can go on being all sad every time this happens and feel like you are part of humanity because you show sadness, or you can get angry at the people ultimately responsible and try to do something about it.
On December 20 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
I used to listen to CNN on the radio while driving, but fuck em. I'm not supporting them for bullshit coverage like this. They are so disconnected from something that is incredibly common these days, and it just destroys their credibility. It's like I'm hearing about the internet being a series of tubes all over again.
To be fair the internet is like a series of tubes, he conveyed it in such a way that it was obvious he had no idea what he was talking about though.
On December 20 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
I used to listen to CNN on the radio while driving, but fuck em. I'm not supporting them for bullshit coverage like this. They are so disconnected from something that is incredibly common these days, and it just destroys their credibility. It's like I'm hearing about the internet being a series of tubes all over again.
It is as played down as I think it is, the guy behind the bill is the infamous Jay Rockefeller he even wants to remove the entire Internet and he is one of the most insane people you will find in the senate, no one takes this guy serious.
Just because something is brought to the senate doesn't mean it actually will happen. There is some other nut who wants to deport a English journalist from CNN named Piers Morgan because he had said something negative about the Head of the Gun owners of America organization, Larry Pratt. Piers Morgans chances of actually being deported are just as high as this bill will go through. In contrast the actual losers in this seems to be guns, just check this pictures that was taken of the NewYork post and the Daily News front pages:
I always wonder about the religious affiliation of the people that commit these acts. It does seem like life is growing harder and harder for the intelligent youth. Most people embrace a delusion to give their life meaning, be it the "immortality" of religion or the general idea that the upholding of values and morals that you and society deem right makes your life more meaningful.
But what delusions does the nihilist have? Combine the notion that everything in the universe is equally and utterly worthless, with a mental disorder like depression or bipolarity, and you get a tumultuous mind. Like someone said recently, I forgot to whom the quote is attributed, people that would otherwise quietly just off themselves in their basement see how glorified they will be from the media and internet and choose to go out with a blaze of glory. There are still memes of James Holmes on reddit everyday. Hell, I'll admit that I recently read Seung-Hui Cho's wikipedia profile.
I think there are multiple angles into reducing the number of mass shootings, and going at just one won't be very effective. Depression is a very serious problem in today's alienating society. Free mental health care seems essential to me. Media coverage is also an issue. How many less mass shootings would there be if the killer's name was never even mentioned? And lastly, while I obviously won't get into it as the mod note forbids it, guns are a contributing factor as well.
Mass shootings are a very real problem and will not be going away anytime soon unless major changes happen.
On December 25 2012 01:25 decado90 wrote: I always wonder about the religious affiliation of the people that commit these acts. It does seem like life is growing harder and harder for the intelligent youth. Most people embrace a delusion to give their life meaning, be it the "immortality" of religion or the general idea that the upholding of values and morals that you and society deem right makes your life more meaningful.
But what delusions does the nihilist have? Combine the notion that everything in the universe is equally and utterly worthless, with a mental disorder like depression or bipolarity, and you get a tumultuous mind. Like someone said recently, I forgot to whom the quote is attributed, people that would otherwise quietly just off themselves in their basement see how glorified they will be from the media and internet and choose to go out with a blaze of glory. There are still memes of James Holmes on reddit everyday. Hell, I'll admit that I recently read Seung-Hui Cho's wikipedia profile.
I think there are multiple angles into reducing the number of mass shootings, and going at just one won't be very effective. Depression is a very serious problem in today's alienating society. Free mental health care seems essential to me. Media coverage is also an issue. How many less mass shootings would there be if the killer's name was never even mentioned? And lastly, while I obviously won't get into it as the mod note forbids it, guns are a contributing factor as well.
Mass shootings are a very real problem and will not be going away anytime soon unless major changes happen.
You're just as bad as the people who blame video games for these kind of shootings.
I think it's a bad idea to state the name of the shooter, especially bold it (like the OP) to make sure people see it.
Just gives people more of a reason to do it. Even if they're dead, they'll be famous. Like decado90 said above me, mass murderers are famous. I mean, even bad press is good press if all you're trying to do is get someone to remember you.
It's just my opinion, but I think there would be less shootings if the shooter's name was never released; even if it was 1 less shooting, I think it'd be worth it.
On December 25 2012 01:25 decado90 wrote: I always wonder about the religious affiliation of the people that commit these acts. It does seem like life is growing harder and harder for the intelligent youth. Most people embrace a delusion to give their life meaning, be it the "immortality" of religion or the general idea that the upholding of values and morals that you and society deem right makes your life more meaningful.
But what delusions does the nihilist have? Combine the notion that everything in the universe is equally and utterly worthless, with a mental disorder like depression or bipolarity, and you get a tumultuous mind. Like someone said recently, I forgot to whom the quote is attributed, people that would otherwise quietly just off themselves in their basement see how glorified they will be from the media and internet and choose to go out with a blaze of glory. There are still memes of James Holmes on reddit everyday. Hell, I'll admit that I recently read Seung-Hui Cho's wikipedia profile.
I think there are multiple angles into reducing the number of mass shootings, and going at just one won't be very effective. Depression is a very serious problem in today's alienating society. Free mental health care seems essential to me. Media coverage is also an issue. How many less mass shootings would there be if the killer's name was never even mentioned? And lastly, while I obviously won't get into it as the mod note forbids it, guns are a contributing factor as well.
Mass shootings are a very real problem and will not be going away anytime soon unless major changes happen.
You're just as bad as the people who blame video games for these kind of shootings.
On December 20 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
I used to listen to CNN on the radio while driving, but fuck em. I'm not supporting them for bullshit coverage like this. They are so disconnected from something that is incredibly common these days, and it just destroys their credibility. It's like I'm hearing about the internet being a series of tubes all over again.
It is as played down as I think it is, the guy behind the bill is the infamous Jay Rockefeller he even wants to remove the entire Internet and he is one of the most insane people you will find in the senate, no one takes this guy serious.
Just because something is brought to the senate doesn't mean it actually will happen. There is some other nut who wants to deport a American journalist from CNN named Piers Morgan because he had said something negative about the Head of the Gun owners of America organization, Larry Pratt. Piers Morgans chances of actually being deported are just as high as this bill will go through. In contrast the actual losers in this seems to be guns, just check this pictures that was taken of the NewYork post and the Daily News front pages: -img-
Uhm, just to correct a few things. Piers Morgan is British. Americans want him deported because he is attacking the 2nd amendment, not because he insulted Larry Pratt. Thirdly, its a petition not a nut, granted it probably won't happen though.
Anyways my opinion on Piers Morgan is that he is rather irrelevant in this debate, he is basically trying to milk this issue for his viewership. I watched a 5 or so minute clip with him debating the issue and its hilariously bad. He really should stay out of serious american politics and stick to interviewing pop stars or celebrities.
Someone who isnt me was bullied a lot at school, to the point where he began wishing them all dead, his few moments of comfort waking up were him visualizing it being done.
The more he visualized it, the more attached to that delusion he became, and detached from reality, with each passing day, the continued bullying just reinforced it into his thoughts, since he took comfort from thinking of doing the massacre, the more he suffered bullying, the more detached and depressed he became, and more and more the delusion gained weight and reality.
What can be acomplished by this individual by doing rush tragic action against his peers ?
In this specific case im mentioning, the individual had low self esteem, and a very low tolerance for frustration (at least compared to healthy people), and his desire was something on the lines of "making them all suffer what I suffer"
When further inquired about it, the elaboration was sort of "In my mind the horrible suffering I was being put thro was everyone elses fault, and by inflicting horrible suffering on them I would be sort of evening things up on every kind of scale, im past the point where I think retribution can be achieved by conversation and apology, I just want these motherfuckers to suffer and in suffering maybe they will question themselves how it has come to this, and how much I suffered to get to this point, and then maybe, they can understand"
This is when I realized that these actions and individuals are motivated mainly by some sort of internal suffering that is very hard to tap into and understand, but seems to be intrinsically connected with a feeling of making a point to society about themselves, no one does something like that without having some sort of desire to be aknowledged in someway by someone
Swim claims that hes glad theres no guns in Brazil, or he might have done something stupid in his depressed youth years
On December 20 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Beyond the occasional sensational televised clips, which has been few, there are no spread discussions regarding if video games did this, even the guy they interviewed said that it was media violence which was the cause, this could even includes CNN itself which is broadcasting this. overall video games are getting the same amount or even less amount of blame like all the other stuff that is getting thrown under the buss.
I used to listen to CNN on the radio while driving, but fuck em. I'm not supporting them for bullshit coverage like this. They are so disconnected from something that is incredibly common these days, and it just destroys their credibility. It's like I'm hearing about the internet being a series of tubes all over again.
It is as played down as I think it is, the guy behind the bill is the infamous Jay Rockefeller he even wants to remove the entire Internet and he is one of the most insane people you will find in the senate, no one takes this guy serious.
Just because something is brought to the senate doesn't mean it actually will happen. There is some other nut who wants to deport a American journalist from CNN named Piers Morgan because he had said something negative about the Head of the Gun owners of America organization, Larry Pratt. Piers Morgans chances of actually being deported are just as high as this bill will go through. In contrast the actual losers in this seems to be guns, just check this pictures that was taken of the NewYork post and the Daily News front pages: -img-
Uhm, just to correct a few things. Piers Morgan is British. Americans want him deported because he is attacking the 2nd amendment, not because he insulted Larry Pratt. Thirdly, its a petition not a nut, granted it probably won't happen though.
On December 25 2012 01:25 decado90 wrote: I always wonder about the religious affiliation of the people that commit these acts. It does seem like life is growing harder and harder for the intelligent youth. Most people embrace a delusion to give their life meaning, be it the "immortality" of religion or the general idea that the upholding of values and morals that you and society deem right makes your life more meaningful.
But what delusions does the nihilist have? Combine the notion that everything in the universe is equally and utterly worthless, with a mental disorder like depression or bipolarity, and you get a tumultuous mind. Like someone said recently, I forgot to whom the quote is attributed, people that would otherwise quietly just off themselves in their basement see how glorified they will be from the media and internet and choose to go out with a blaze of glory. There are still memes of James Holmes on reddit everyday. Hell, I'll admit that I recently read Seung-Hui Cho's wikipedia profile.
I think there are multiple angles into reducing the number of mass shootings, and going at just one won't be very effective. Depression is a very serious problem in today's alienating society. Free mental health care seems essential to me. Media coverage is also an issue. How many less mass shootings would there be if the killer's name was never even mentioned? And lastly, while I obviously won't get into it as the mod note forbids it, guns are a contributing factor as well.
Mass shootings are a very real problem and will not be going away anytime soon unless major changes happen.
You're just as bad as the people who blame video games for these kind of shootings.
what do you mean? i thought his argument was quite reasonable and that it made sense. and video games like cod can be used to vent off stress and teaches people to vent by shooting people (some games can instill the notion of violence in some people, it is not something that every game can do nor is it something that every person can be affected by but that doesn't mean that the possibility fails to exist)
You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
On December 25 2012 05:15 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
I read what you wrote about 5 times over, and I still have no clue as to why you're talking about memes. I get what you're trying to talk about, but why the hell .. memes what....
On December 25 2012 05:15 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
I read what you wrote about 5 times over, and I still have no clue as to why you're talking about memes. I get what you're trying to talk about, but why the hell .. memes what....
On December 25 2012 05:15 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
I read what you wrote about 5 times over, and I still have no clue as to why you're talking about memes. I get what you're trying to talk about, but why the hell .. memes what....
Really ? I understood perfectly
You should study some memetics
I didn't really understand either, but I got the tone of it.
On December 25 2012 05:15 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
I read what you wrote about 5 times over, and I still have no clue as to why you're talking about memes. I get what you're trying to talk about, but why the hell .. memes what....
Memes is a lot more than just funny pictures passed around online. Memes are ideas or concepts that spread from person to person.
He's trying to say that there are people who see mass shootings as a cool thing to do, because other people do it and get attention. It's like karma whoring on reddit, but instead of posting cat pictures, you go and kill a dozen people in the hopes that your name is remembered.
Here's an interview with a cop in Connecticut over the many unanswered questions and inconsistencies with the Sandy Hook incident. These are two reasonable people discussing reasonable things.
I see above ^^ that some Americans want to deport Piers Morgan because he apparently attacked the Second Amendment. I am no constitutional legal expert but isn't everyone signing that petition to deport him attacking his Freedom of Speech which is protected under the First Amendment? So they think they are standing up for the Bill of Rights by going against it themselves? That sounds stupid, so I must be missing something.
the conservative right in America have this bizarre aspect to them which is that they want masses of control over everyone's behaviour (when it goes against their cast iron moral principles) but they simultaneously preach about how they despise big government and, you guessed it, government control. Bizarre double standards.
It was difficult to watch all the news recaps that were happening yesterday, covering the worst crimes of the past year and the most tragic events. Everytime I get too wrapped up in myself feeling bad, I just have to remember that what I feel is miniscule compared to those who lost sometime in this shooting or any like it.
On January 01 2013 21:12 revel8 wrote: I see above ^^ that some Americans want to deport Piers Morgan because he apparently attacked the Second Amendment. I am no constitutional legal expert but isn't everyone signing that petition to deport him attacking his Freedom of Speech which is protected under the First Amendment? So they think they are standing up for the Bill of Rights by going against it themselves? That sounds stupid, so I must be missing something.
You sir are indeed correct. These are some of the many idiots that reside within the USA.
The problem is the family structure in the united states. The family structure is crumbling. There is something to be said about having some conservative ideals...and family should be one such case.
If you have Kids raising kids like we do at a higher and higher rate in this country, your opening all kinds of psychological problems for yourself as a nation.
I think you stand a better chance of success if you have two able parents raising you. It helps if they have some age to insure that they're instilling in you some real life lessons.
All to often kids are either destroyed by their families. Or are released into the world unprepared like sheep thrown to a pack of wolves. And mentality they cannot cope. We're doing this to our selves.
On January 01 2013 21:12 revel8 wrote: I see above ^^ that some Americans want to deport Piers Morgan because he apparently attacked the Second Amendment. I am no constitutional legal expert but isn't everyone signing that petition to deport him attacking his Freedom of Speech which is protected under the First Amendment? So they think they are standing up for the Bill of Rights by going against it themselves? That sounds stupid, so I must be missing something.
You sir are indeed correct. These are some of the many idiots that reside within the USA.
Its probably the same idiots that said "remember pearl habor" when the earthquakes hit Japan.
On December 25 2012 05:15 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: You know what is scary? Killing is a meme now. Started with one guy who thought it was cool, everyone passed it around, then another guy decided to make one about kids, now everyone's doing it. At the risk of sounding too facetious, my point is that talking about it all the time in the media, has begun more talking about it, which makes more people want to join in, kind of like a meme.
And like any meme, I just want it to end.
Now we are down to luring Firefighters to a blaze then shooting them down, 3 dead 2 critically injured. And then these things will be standard, so to keep the fame up we'll need to shoot more high profile things, or be more craven and cunning to grab that sweet media attention.
If I can use a meme to express my sadness against a meme itd be #don'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore
I read what you wrote about 5 times over, and I still have no clue as to why you're talking about memes. I get what you're trying to talk about, but why the hell .. memes what....
Memes is a lot more than just funny pictures passed around online. Memes are ideas or concepts that spread from person to person.
He's trying to say that there are people who see mass shootings as a cool thing to do, because other people do it and get attention. It's like karma whoring on reddit, but instead of posting cat pictures, you go and kill a dozen people in the hopes that your name is remembered.
It's not even about things being judged as "cool" or not, it's the idea of a shooting by itself. If people would never have heard about a shooting, they would not come up with that idea by themselves, and would flip out in a different way, with a different idea they heard of, perhaps some method of suicide, perhaps selling all their shit and moving into the wilderness, etc.
On January 06 2013 08:05 fight_or_flight wrote: Whether you believe this video or not, there is a clear RIFT opening up in America. Don't believe me? Look at the ratings of this video. Look at the comments. The number of people who are beginning to think this was a fake event is growing exponentially.
I don't think that the crazies have increased in any amount I think that there are just more ways for them to spread their crazy to other people now that we have the internet.
On January 01 2013 21:12 revel8 wrote: I see above ^^ that some Americans want to deport Piers Morgan because he apparently attacked the Second Amendment. I am no constitutional legal expert but isn't everyone signing that petition to deport him attacking his Freedom of Speech which is protected under the First Amendment? So they think they are standing up for the Bill of Rights by going against it themselves? That sounds stupid, so I must be missing something.
You sir are indeed correct. These are some of the many idiots that reside within the USA.
It is sort of weird that google would block that search though isn't it? Not saying it's a hoax but I wonder why google would do that
I think this video shows how pathetic the media really is now though. They trip all over themselves vomiting any rumours that they hear as the truth. I mean every time a tragedy happens you can pretty much just ignore the news for a day or two until the real details come out. I remember the Brevnik shooting reports had multiple shooters so did the Aurora shooting....
Did some research regarding whether or not it was a hoax or not, including watching the 10 million view "Sandy Hook Exposed" video. Lots of the evidence sure does point towards a conspiracy, but seems like if the government really wanted to pull a cover they would make it a little harder for some random basement dweller to uncover this sort of thing. Some of the proof does look very convincing though.
On January 18 2013 13:57 GenesisX wrote: Did some research regarding whether or not it was a hoax or not, including watching the 10 million view "Sandy Hook Exposed" video. Lots of the evidence sure does point towards a conspiracy, but seems like if the government really wanted to pull a cover they would make it a little harder for some random basement dweller to uncover this sort of thing. Some of the proof does look very convincing though.
How exactly do they explain more than 20 dead people? The government killed them?
On January 06 2013 08:05 fight_or_flight wrote: Whether you believe this video or not, there is a clear RIFT opening up in America. Don't believe me? Look at the ratings of this video. Look at the comments. The number of people who are beginning to think this was a fake event is growing exponentially.
I don't think that the crazies have increased in any amount I think that there are just more ways for them to spread their crazy to other people now that we have the internet.
I'd have to disagree. As of today, the search volume on google for "sandy hook hoax" is now one third of what the search volume for "sandy hook shooting" was on the day it happened. That's insane.
search engines suggest it was a hoax. google doesn't even mention the shooting...
Second, there's a video with 9 million+ views. Why has it gone viral? Because of the number of wtf moments it contains. The whole video is wtf if it's the first time you're seeing any of this. This is really insane!!!
Grenville84 6 minutes ago 1) Mass shooting does actually occur 2) Deliberately misleading reports & red herrings dispersed by media 3) Conspiracy theories propounded to account for the red herrings 4) Left to boil until conspiracies are rife and widely discussed (nearly 10m views here!) 5) Conspiracy theories are officially proven wrong, red herrings shown to be coincidental 6) Media reports how damaging the conspiracy theories were for the families 7) Fresh attempts to censor the internet Attack on 1st amendment? · 2
I flicked through a bit of that Fully Exposed video and must say I am fully WTFing over that Robbie Parker interview where he is laughing and smiling at the start.
I come click this thread just to see why it was bumped expecting new information or something instead i see this crap and my faith in humanity is again at an all time low...
Conspiracy theorist at my least fav people, it's arrogance that runs a conspiracy theorist. It's a disbelief in something that goes against their realm of what could be real leading to a forced rift and interpretation of information in order to magnify their needs to feel right, to feel special and safe that they see something that everybody else doesn't. It's down right disrespectful to those who often have given their blood and is further exacerbated by the part where conspiracy theorists pick and choose what to listen to. Somehow any information that goes against their world view is auto wrong.
What the fuck? Reading the last page of this thread is shocking and disappointing...why would people actually think this? (rhetorical question, don't answer it )
There are dozens of websites, blog posts and YouTube videos extolling the Emilie Parker hoax theory. If you Google her name, the very first result is a post mocking her father for crying at a press conference after the shooting. One popular video, which already has 134,000 views, was made by the producers of a popular 9/11 Truther film. “Just as the movie ‘Operation Terror’ shows the 9/11 attacks were a made-for-TV event, so too were the mass shootings … There can be no doubt that Sandy Hook was a staged event,” the narrator intones. He goes on to say that the adults who participated in the media coverage of the shootings “should be prosecuted as accessories after the fact in a mass murder” — i.e., the parents whose children were murdered in the massacre should be thrown in prison.
The crux of the theory is a photograph of Parker’s sister sitting on President Obama’s lap when he visited with the victims’ families. The girl is wearing the same dress Emilie wore in a pre-shooting photograph of the family shared with media, so she must be Emilie, alive and well. “BAM! I cannot believe how idiot these people are [sic]… That’s her,” one YouTuber exclaims as he watches the two images superimposed on each other. (Apparently missed by these crack investigators is the possibility that the sister wore Emilie’s dress and that they look alike because they are sisters, after all.)
The supporting details to the hoax theory explanation are reminiscent of the arcana of any well-developed conspiracy theory. What about the car? What about the rifle? Why does someone off camera allegedly tell Parker’s father to “read the Card” (as in a cue card) before he goes on CNN? Why is he laughing? Who is the guy running into the woods? Why is there police audio referring to multiple shooters? Why does one boy who survived the shooting tell Dr. Oz it was like “a drill”? Why was the principal quoted by a local paper after she died? Why do some of the parents look like some of the victims of the Aurora shooting — are they “all actors”? All of these questions have simple explanations, but in each case, the theorists have sided more with less likely, but more nefarious possibilities.
Guys I totally respect that you are open minded enough to listen to what this video is showing, but at least conduct some research afterwards! The first place you should go is here. How's that for "absolute proof"? Also, Occam's razor--how many people (in the media, in newtown, etc. etc.) would have to be complicit in this gigantic cover up for this to be true? how badly would the government have had to fuck up in order to for this to get out? I mean come on! This is disgusting.
On January 18 2013 14:32 LosingID8 wrote: the video is indeed quite interesting. i'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories but some of that footage is pretty unbelievable.
So is all the conspiracy stuff. Until you google "debunk".
A white knight is defined as a male that treats woman as goddesses and does nothing but shower then in compliments on how wonderful and beautiful and special they are. Maybe be used as a noun or a verb.
A person (usually a male) who sees the typical maiden in distress, and believes that he can help her. A male version of the "mother figure" that some girls become.
A gaming term used to describe a male gamer who, in a desperate attempt to get himself laid, will attempt to woo or impress any female gamer he comes across online by being overly defensive of her and giving her special attention, such as playing as a healing class and only healing her.
Pretty sure white knighting is, by definition, used with regard to coming to the aid of a girl. Not sure as to what white knighting is going on here. Maybe, if you really really really want to stretch it, it involves coming to the aid of/defending an ideology, but not sure as to what large ideology is being defended here by evidence posted in order to debunk the hoax hypothesis.
On January 18 2013 15:17 CaptainCharisma wrote: Watch out the white knights have come.
Dude, you have your awful memes mixed up, which, rather ironically, is exactly the sort of thing one should expect from a conspiracy theorist whose information comes from unmediated internet material.
On January 18 2013 15:17 CaptainCharisma wrote: Watch out the white knights have come.
Dude, you have your awful memes mixed up, which, rather ironically, is exactly the sort of thing one should expect from a conspiracy theorist whose information comes from unmediated internet material.
1) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think Sandy Hook was highly likely to have happened, but that guy's manner before he starts talking about his dead child was weird. That is interesting from any perspective.
2) You don't appear to understand what irony is.
3) FYI to you and other guy:
white knight noun 1. a hero who comes to the rescue. 2. a beleaguered champion who fights heroically for a cause, as in politics. 3. Informal. a company that comes to the rescue of another, as to prevent a takeover.
After a hard day of self-righteousness and sanctimonious power struggles against the beleaguering masses, your mellifluous diction and charismatic disposition render the miserably thankless tribulations of a true champion all worth it. Our heartfelt gratitude to you, noble islander citizen.
On January 18 2013 16:04 Aerisky wrote: After a hard day of self-righteousness and sanctimonious power struggles against the beleaguering masses, your mellifluous diction and charismatic disposition render the miserably thankless tribulations of a true champion all worth it. Our heartfelt gratitude to you, noble islander citizen.
On January 18 2013 14:32 LosingID8 wrote: the video is indeed quite interesting. i'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories but some of that footage is pretty unbelievable.
So is any video edited to make a point rather then to convey context and facts, it doesn't all need to be jump cuts if you line things up right and out of context putting your own narrative over it suddenly A becomes B.
On January 18 2013 15:17 CaptainCharisma wrote: Watch out the white knights have come.
Dude, you have your awful memes mixed up, which, rather ironically, is exactly the sort of thing one should expect from a conspiracy theorist whose information comes from unmediated internet material.
1) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think Sandy Hook was highly likely to have happened, but that guy's manner before he starts talking about his dead child was weird.
An impossibly ignorant, arrogant, stupid, cruel, moronic judgment, at least impossible without some stupid ulterior motive which you've backed away from. DIAF.
On January 18 2013 15:17 CaptainCharisma wrote: Watch out the white knights have come.
Dude, you have your awful memes mixed up, which, rather ironically, is exactly the sort of thing one should expect from a conspiracy theorist whose information comes from unmediated internet material.
1) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think Sandy Hook was highly likely to have happened, but that guy's manner before he starts talking about his dead child was weird.
An impossibly ignorant, arrogant, stupid, cruel, moronic judgment, at least impossible without some stupid ulterior motive which you've backed away from. DIAF.
So I take it you think Sandy Hook was fake? Because if you read what I said I clearly state I think Sandy Hook happened and am not a conspiracy theorist.
Or maybe you're talking about me calling him weird for smiling and laughing before giving a speech about his child who died the day before. Perfectly normal, I guess.
I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks that the shooting didn't happen. But the massive amount of incorrect information circulating around this case is what has caused the a lot of rational folks to doubt the "official" story of the events and how everything went down. If you send out a bunch of false facts, whether on purpose or just because of terrible journalism ( a very serious issue in the US right now), and then hide/classify a lot of relevant information that could clear up the misconceptions of the public, it's easy to see why there are so many people asking "WTF?". The claim that the debunking video makes about people wanting to believe their government is the devil over some random crazy going on a random rampage is pretty ignorant. I think it's a lot more comforting to know that crazy people exist and may sometimes do crazy shit around you than to think "oh yea, our government will kill people, even its own citizens, and lie to push their agenda". Sure the crazies would jump on the bandwagon regardless of the facts, but a lot of non-conspiracy types are asking "why?" and the cops/media aren't doing a very good job of answering without seeming shady as hell. Here's hoping that once the gag-order and near blackout of information is lifted, some light will be shed and we can all go back to worrying about something else.
All, I apologize for prematurely posting some information here recently. It has come to my attention that there are some fundamental flaws in some of what's being spread around the internet currently. You can PM me if you think otherwise.
Adam Curry is my cousin and I talked to him several times. That guy is a douche bag, both as a friend and a family member. Take what he says with a grain of salt. I always avoided talking about politics with him because it will always dissolve into conspiracy theories and how we are sheeple.
what the fuck is wrong with some people. I know there are guys out there that get an instant hard on whenever they hear the word conspiracy, but have some fucking respect. Your ideas are absurd, but most people put up with your shit because the evidence you put forward is so weak it doesn't merit being seriously discussed. But I mean, come on, this is just disgusting.
I have a question regarding the thread note, if "gun ban/gun control" is not at the heart of this issue, what is? psycological problems, family problems, criminality, are all arbitrary issues in the light of how ridiculously easy it is to own a gun in your country!
On January 22 2013 12:46 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I have a question regarding the thread note, if "gun ban/gun control" is not at the heart of this issue, what is? psycological problems, family problems, criminality, are all arbitrary issues in the light of how ridiculously easy it is to own a gun in your country!
valid point, but there's a thread for gun control and as far as I know it's perfectly okay to bring up Sandy Hook in said thread. I think that rule is more about keeping the thread from being derailed than it is about censoring gun control discussion.
On January 22 2013 12:46 Christ the Redeemer wrote: I have a question regarding the thread note, if "gun ban/gun control" is not at the heart of this issue, what is? psycological problems, family problems, criminality, are all arbitrary issues in the light of how ridiculously easy it is to own a gun in your country!
I put the abstract in spoilers, but the whole article is worth a read, imo. As the title implies, it shows how conspiracy theorists believe opposing conspiracies (if A is true, then B is false, but they believe both A and B), and it's all based on their preconceived belief that the government cannot be trusted. What else is interesting is (and I don't have the source for this) that conspiracy theorists seem to become more grounded in their beliefs as more evidence mounts against their case. It's pretty bizarre, really.
Abstract: Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: a self-sustaining worldviewcomprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that evenendorsement of mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated. In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that OsamaBin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the morethey believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatibleconspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that theauthorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general
All that said, the guy that spliced those videos to make things appear different than they are is a complete asshole. Because, make no mistake, his videos are heavily edited, and largely taken out of context.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://senatorandrewlanza.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Romney-Ryan-Lanza-300x249.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-GYvvfCUAAD-0G.png:large)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jnGf0.png)
![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/S4J7uTQT5Cj.gG9EGqcQtA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0yODg7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/gma/us.abcnews.gma.com/ht_Adam_lanza_sandy_hook_bug_121214_wmain.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A-P_y1bCYAEJUHZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z1nZW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s2.postimage.org/64a3l6bop/sandy_hook_hoax.png)
![[image loading]](http://s8.postimage.org/spzzexsc5/sandy_hook_search_terms.png)
