Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think we have to back off this whole discussion and consider that these mass murdering shooters are an aberration...it's not a norm. They get lots of media attention certainly, and they exceed other countries by far.
However because they are aberrations any attempt to classify them will just not make sense, it's impossible - there are 44 million gun owners in the US and mass murders are performed by .0000227% of gun owners (something like 3 millionth of 1 percent). Likewise if you attempt to segregate by sex, by age, anything - there is no possible way to make an overall conclusion, making this topic pointless.
Take each one at a time, starting with the mental state of each shooter.
Gun violence in the US in itself however is much easier to define and classify (mass murders simply being a statistical insignificant, although high profile and emotional portion of total gun crime), and people have done that - simply enough those are with young urban males of a certain demographic group.
But it is a norm. Look at the data since 1982 - the average is way over one mass shooting per year, every year, in the US.
Its not a norm, but an aberration, in Canada, Australia and the UK. But in the US, it is on average a greater-than-annual-frequency event. An annual mass shooting, at least one, is the norm.
Statistically insignificant compared to the total number of shooting deaths per year - yes.
It's silly to try to figure out why they do what they do, because -
There was more than one shooter. Even with an automatic weapon, you can't shoot 500+ people in so short a time. The media depends on people not knowing much about this.
Somebody else (police, gov't, etc) was complicit. There were 10" high walls keeping people from moving out of the way. They were just sitting duck. Nobody reports this.
You have to be careful where you get your news from.
Yes, the NRA was behind this. Guns sales were down since Trump got voted in. They needed to create something to boost sales. That is the story when the conspiracy junkies come out.
OK lets be reasonable. Where was the other shooter? Only two windows were broke in the hotel, both connected to one suite. That 4th floor BS, no broken window and the news media has been back to film and that is a reflection from lights on the property. It is there every single night. Same area.
The 10ft high walls were so people who didn't pay didn't wander on to the property. That has been addressed repeatedly in Las Vegas. Concert goers were given a wristlet to go in and out. which was flashed to security.
Take your own advice and be careful where you get your news from. Put away your tin foil hat.
That depends on how and who we define stalkers by.
What I do of finding people on the Net has been described as stalking.
Shrug, it's what I do, what I'm good at. It's not pretty being a spook, but someone has to do it. As far as being a coward, well that's a matter of opinion, too!
If some one has described you as a stalker that's their way of saying that you and what you do is creepy. It's not a compliment.
If you are googling some one that you may hire to baby sit your child to see if they have posted pictures of themself stringing up babies by their ankles to use as piñatas then it's fine to google to make sure that you are leaving your child with a safe person.
It's all about what your motive is.
If your motive is creepy. You are creepy.
And creepy people that lurk in the shadows are always considered to be cowardly and yucky people.
Notice your behavior has been described as stalking by others. (Aka creepy and freak like)
Your behavior has not been described as brave or admirable.
Ps it's what you are good at? You consider your ability to google a talent? You do realize anyone can do that if they feel like it right? So it's not considered impressive. I think it's very sad that you cited that as what you are good at. Because that means that you really aren't good at anything. Do any of the people that you stalk have talents, abilities, qualities that you don't posses? Well then. Looks like we know why you stalk. If you can figure out a way to like yourself you won't be so concerned with what other people are up to.
But it is a norm. Look at the data since 1982 - the average is way over one mass shooting per year, every year, in the US.
Its not a norm, but an aberration, in Canada, Australia and the UK. But in the US, it is on average a greater-than-annual-frequency event. An annual mass shooting, at least one, is the norm.
Statistically insignificant compared to the total number of shooting deaths per year - yes.
Well a norm for who? For men in general? For gun owners? For young adults? Is it a norm or standard act that 63 year old men shoot up a mass of people? Weather you call it a norm or an aberration, which are both subjective terms, I just don't see anything we can gleam from it as a common motivation. A few years ago it seemed it was all young adults suffering from some mental issues where, as typical, they "snap" during that age. But the last few years we've seen a mix - a minority bent on some hatred of police, a self-radicalized muslim, and now a 63 year old rich dude for reasons unknown.
You must recognize that the author, Charlie Hoehn, is not a psychologist and nothing in his biography indicates he is equipped to analyze this situation or any other. At best, what he presents is simply his opinion; to present it as fact exposes him for what he is - a huckster. For others to alter their course in the slightest based on his writings, believing them to be centered on anything other than his singular opinion, does a great disservice. For them to alter their course based on the possibility that even his published "opinion" is a fiction is a tragedy.
Of course it was an opinion piece. And he states very clearly in the article that he is no psychology professional. I just thought that the topic was interesting and worthy of discussion. If you don't feel the same, so be it.
Seldom was not a good word choice. What I've noticed is that mass shootings occur more frequently since Columbine, and intervals betwwen them keep getting shorter. I doubt we have a serious disagreement.
Well, there is a disagreement of a sort. While shooters seem to be "popular", those lists show that "mass murder" is "nothing new". Further, the use of fire is even more easier than the bullet, as in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire . As in that case, fire is also deadlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brinley
If some one has described you as a stalker that's their way of saying that you and what you do is creepy. It's not a compliment.
If you are googling some one that you may hire to baby sit your child to see if they have posted pictures of themself stringing up babies by their ankles to use as piñatas then it's fine to google to make sure that you are leaving your child with a safe person.
It's all about what your motive is.
If your motive is creepy. You are creepy.
And creepy people that lurk in the shadows are always considered to be cowardly and yucky people.
Notice your behavior has been described as stalking by others. (Aka creepy and freak like)
Your behavior has not been described as brave or admirable.
Well, as I said, it isn't pretty (or nice) being a spy......but someone has to do it.
It is what I am, be it the Net, be it doing surveillance on someone, be it arriving under a dock with scuba to listen in on someone with listening equipment, whatever.
Where it is me the individual or the USS Seawolf off the coast of the USSR planting listening devices (Book: Blind Man's Bluff), that's spying, that's stalking.
FURTHER, when I was in NROTC, my classmates, some of them, considered me unhonorable because in hand to hand, I would use my dance moves, out turn people, and attack on their backsides.
An Infantry General set me straight........there is no honor in a street fight.
So seeing things from that angle, where one takes the advantages they can get instead of fighting head on, at equal odds, that's just plan smart thinking.
After all, the good guys such as SWAT hit with overwhelming force, not one on one.....to say nothing of their sniper.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 10-10-2017 at 04:05 PM..
Are you trying to equate mass murderers to combat? There is off topic and then there is OFF TOPIC.
Maybe it's off topic. Maybe it's not. No one can say at this point because no one knows for sure what the motive was or the mindset of SP when he committed that crime. He may have thought he was at war with the people at the concert and that he was taking out the enemy. And if he was working with anyone else they now consider him to be brave and heroic and worthy of a medal.
There are many people that think that North Korea should be bombed to take out the enemy. They view the citizens that may get killed in the process as collateral damage that's worth it for their cause. Their cause of protecting the world from NK.
Who knows what this guys cause was?
Until anyone can define what his motive was no one can really define what's off topic and what's not.
He may not have viewed himself as a mass murderer. He may have viewed himself as a soldier in combat. And if he was working with others, that's how they viewed it too.
Which shooters seem to you to exemplify your theory?
In my lifetime as a female I've never noticed any favoritism for females, even in a mostly female field. I really don't understand your point about a system driven by feminism. This is no system I am familiar with.
I do agree that our society has changed and coninues to do so. I think the single biggest change of the Twentieth Century was birth control, which has allowed women some of the freedoms and responsibilities previously reserved for men. While I know that some men are aggrieved about this, I fail to understand why this would force them to do mass killings. To prove their manhood?
And why would perceived slights against men produce worse repercussions than the millennia of slights against women?
For a time, moistly between 2000 and 2009, I worked in call centers, where the staff was. in most cases, predominately female. Male reps always seemed to have a harder time fitting in, and I have to view one of the root causes as constant pressure for "empathy" -- even when a person with any normal sense of self-respect would view the caller's attitude as unrealistic; ("Take every opportunity to say 'I'm sorry' -- even though your actions had noting to do with the issue.") And some of the new hires, almost always male, were usually let go at the close of training, not for any willful or deliberate misconduct, but because they simply weren't "gushy" enough.
And then there was an incident in connection with a couple of our sister facilities in Canada, where our local chief of the Politically Correct Police designed a poster praising the efforts of "minority and Canadian women" (as if Canadian men had to be identified in some way as 'not quite as good'), Somehow, the merchants of tokenism still find ways of tripping over their own blindness and stupidity.
Multiply these subtle messages by thousands of instances, in dozens of variations in hundreds of workplaces, and add in the increasing "competition" from over-sensitized young men raised predominately in single-parent, female-headed households, and it becomes easier to understand why a lot of us can't help but read between the lines. No sane male is going to respond with violence -- but when the issue of subtle provocation is raised, there are always a small minority of 'aggressive" feminists who just grin smugly and look the other way. And once in a very great while, they accidentally step on the wrong set of toes.
I'm attempting to point this out openly, and in a respectful manner, so I don't think (or at least hope) that the P. C. Police will be paying a visit to my door; but back in the mens' room, there are probably a small number of unbalanced individuals who aren't so polite. And when those idiots lash out it's usually verbal or, at worst, a slap or two. But eventually, the one-in-a-million gets pushed "over the edge", often by a hard-core case from the opposite camp I previously cited (Post #5); then we all have to pay.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-10-2017 at 04:33 PM..
For a time, moistly between 2000 and 2009, I worked in call centers, where the staff was. in most cases, predominately female. Male reps always seemed to have a harder time fitting in, and I have to view one of the root causes as constant pressure for "empathy" -- even when a person with any normal sense of self-respect would view the caller's attitude as unrealistic; ("Take every opportunity to say 'I'm sorry' -- even though your actions had noting to do with the issue.") And some of the new hires, almost always male, were usually let go at the close of training, not for any willful or deliberate misconduct, but because they simply weren't "gushy" enough.
And then there was an incident in connection with a couple of our sister facilities in Canada, where our local chief of the Politically Correct Police designed a poster praising the efforts of "minority and Canadian women" (as if Canadian men had to be identified in some way as 'not quite as good'), Somehow, the merchants of tokenism still find ways of tripping over their own blindness and stupidity.
Multiply these subtle messages by thousands of instances, in dozens of variations in hundreds of workplaces, and add in the increasing "competition" from over-sensitized young men raised predominately in single-parent, female-headed households, and it becomes easier to understand why a lot of us can't help but read between the lines. No sane male is going to respond with violence -- but when the issue of subtle provocation is raised, there are always a small minority of 'aggressive" feminists who just grin smugly and look the other way. And once in a very great while, they accidentally step on the wrong set of toes.
I'm attempting to point this out openly, and in a respectful manner, so I don't think (or at least hope) that the P. C. Police will be paying a visit to my door; but back in the mens' room, there are probably a small number of unbalanced individuals who aren't so polite. And when those idiots lash out it's usually verbal or, at worst, a slap or two. But eventually, the one-in-a-million gets pushed "over the edge", often by a hard-core case from the opposite camp I previously cited (Post #5); then we all have to pay.
Honestly, I don't think feminim is the cause of mass shootings, or that exposure to feminism produces mass shooters. I do not see the correlation. The evil comes from within the shooter; he is to blame. The shooter is not the victim in any scenario I can imagine.
I am sorry you had a difficult work experience. Most of us living today have had our share of same. The workplace is demeaning, and often does not reward talent or hard work. But it is this way for all of us, not just men.
I've been thinking a lot about the many mass shootings in the U.S. in recent years, and my take on it is that there isn't any one cause. It's a combination of several factors:
1. Gender. These shooters are overwhelmingly male. Males are socialized to view aggression and fighting as a normal rite of passage. Little boys play war games and wrestle with each other while their sisters are encouraged to play dolls or dress up. To some extent these differences are based on the hormonal differences between men and women. Men have more testosterone, a hormone which in excess can cause anger which leads to aggression and violent behavior.
2. Social structure. In previous generations, men were the only breadwinners and in a mostly rural society, it took a lot of hard physical labor day in and day out, to keep the family fed. Automation has downgraded the value of manual labor. There are fewer jobs that require only strength and stamina. Men who used to herd cattle, swing an anvil or operate heavy machinery now sit behind desks. Modern men have fewer productive ways to channel their energy and validate their manhood.
3. Media. Since the dawn of motion pictures, film, radio and TV, these forms of entertainment have glorified violence. Think of it: How many plot lines are resolved when the hero pulls out a gun and shoots the villain? Or when the scientists kill the monster by firebombing it? The character who has the weapon is the one who has all the power and the one who gets to be judge, jury and executioner. This message has been influencing our subconscious minds for generations.
4. Overpopulation. Thanks to increases in population we have more people competing for fewer resources. Housing is expensive and jobs are more scarce. Because there are more people than jobs, wages have stagnated. Workers are a dime a dozen, so employers exploit their power by paying as little as possible and treating employees like cattle. This creates a lot of alienated people who are angry at society, who view their fellow man as competitors and who looking for scapegoats to blame.
5. Untreated mental health issues. There are so many walking time bombs in our society who would never seek help because of the stigma surrounding mental illness, because they and their families may be in denial, and because there just aren't the resources available to identify and treat all the people who need help.
6. Easy access to firearms. This is a subject for its own thread, but if the U.S. had stricter gun laws it might not be so easy for a disturbed person to accumulate a cache of automatic weapons.
If you take a disturbed person with a lot of untapped energy, a grudge against society, the fantasy that shooting people will somehow make him a hero and the means to acquire firearms, and you have a recipe for mass murder. I think it's a copout to blame feminism, although it is true that since women have entered the work force in large numbers, being male no longer gives men the automatic advantage that they had enjoyed and taken for granted throughout most of history. This is bound to cause resentment.
Last edited by Bayarea4; 10-10-2017 at 06:46 PM..
Reason: Clarification and to add an additional thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
