If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Everything you know about mass murder is wrong   (news.com.au) divider line 95
    More: Interesting, common misconceptions, Moving Beyond Newtown, school massacre, Asperger's syndrome, Sandy Hook, social isolation, mass shooting, James Alan Fox  
•       •       •

8881 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2013 at 7:45 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-21 12:41:19 AM
I wanted to snark the headline, but after reading article, I didnt feel like it anymore.

Content was rational and agreeable, IMHO.
 
2013-12-21 12:46:19 AM
I knew most of that, suspected the rest. Very good article.
 
2013-12-21 07:31:31 AM
Wait, this thing dispels "myths" commonly argued by both sides of the political spectrum. It can't possibly be true.
 
2013-12-21 07:50:08 AM
Wait, so I DON'T know how much square footage of tarp is necessary to properly wrap a hooker shaped object?

Am I using too little or too much?
 
2013-12-21 07:55:42 AM

serial_crusher: Wait, this thing dispels "myths" commonly argued by both sides of the political spectrum. It can't possibly be true.


i18.photobucket.com
This could be a highly entertaining thread, what with the equally deranged fappers and grabbers both hating the fact that reality doesn't conform to their narratives.
 
2013-12-21 07:56:40 AM
I'm wrong? fark you, I'm wrong! Tell me I'm wrong again and I'll kill you and everyone around you!

/disclaimer: I'm only kidding, NSA! Please don't send me to jail.
 
2013-12-21 07:58:57 AM
So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.
 
2013-12-21 07:59:14 AM
Well, to be fair, mass murder is also wrong. So I don't feel like I should get all the blame here.
 
2013-12-21 07:59:19 AM
Thank god someone has an official definition of "mass shooting" because the media is just throwing that phrase around these days like it applies to any form of gun related crime in a public space.
 
2013-12-21 08:02:20 AM
The first thing you need to know is that mass is not the same as weight.
 
2013-12-21 08:05:14 AM
Ironically, an Australian website neglected to mention the Australian solution to mass shootings: the removal of (most) guns from the civilian population.
 
2013-12-21 08:06:56 AM

Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.


No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..
 
2013-12-21 08:07:48 AM
Mass murderers tend to have certain things in common: they are overwhelmingly male, caucasian, older than 30, and they display psychological and behavioural characteristics including depression, resentment, social isolation, the tendency to externalise blame, fascination with graphically violent entertainment, and a keen interest in weaponry.

Great, half of Fark consists of potential mass murderers. The other half is likely undercover FBI agents.
 
2013-12-21 08:08:32 AM
There's a whole lot of highly dubious conclusions in that. Let's try anyway.
 
2013-12-21 08:10:51 AM
Short version: You can't stop crazy.  To a point, mass murderers are gonna do their thing, and there's no way to stop them while even maintaining the semblance of a "free" society.

Can't really disagree with the article.  Get a big enough population, and there's gonna be crazy in there.  The occasional wacko bombing or shooting up someplace is simply the price we're going to have to pay to have a society without random search and seizure of people's homes and records of their lives, without mandatory mental health screenings, and where people are free to go plan for and arm for this kind of stuff in the privacy of their homes.

That's not to say we shouldn't take action - at least to investigate further - if they slip up and let on what's coming ("hi, Home Depot?  I need 500lbs of Ammonium-based fertilizer, and do you see detcord?").  But there's no rational way to stop even a significant portion of these people without completely intrusive security measures.  Sucks, but there it is.

/good article, subby.
 
2013-12-21 08:12:36 AM

jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..


I'd go a step further. The laws enacted due to mass panic and paranoia usually have very negative consequences, but because they are attached to some regional or national trauma, there's almost no way to undo the harm.

I guess we wind up with the civilization we deserve.
 
2013-12-21 08:13:56 AM

flucto: There's a whole lot of highly dubious conclusions in that. Let's try anyway.


There is nothing in the article that suggests that we shouldn't try - even if you accept all of it's claims.
It just suggests that emotional panic responses to extremely rare events may not represent our best efforts.
 
2013-12-21 08:15:27 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Wait, so I DON'T know how much square footage of tarp is necessary to properly wrap a hooker shaped object?

Am I using too little or too much?


Your standard 8' x 10' should do the trick. This should be enough to allow a full two layers once the "object" is wrapped up in it, which will keep any "fluids" that may be leaking from the "object" from staining the carpet of your trunk.
 
2013-12-21 08:15:34 AM
 it seems to me that it needs to be qualified with "in America".
 
2013-12-21 08:17:51 AM

casual disregard: jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..

I'd go a step further. The laws enacted due to mass panic and paranoia usually have very negative consequences, but because they are attached to some regional or national trauma, there's almost no way to undo the harm.


I believe that's overly pessimistic. In my reading of American history, we have frequently revisited bad decisions and reversed them. The bad decision to allow slavery is one, Prohibition another - it just takes time and shifts in political fortunes.
 
2013-12-21 08:18:01 AM

Shotgun Justice: Ironically, an Australian website neglected to mention the Australian solution to mass shootings: the removal of (most) guns from the civilian population.


Yeah, but it's not like the problem was solved: people in Australia have taken to killing masses of people with knives, baseball bats, and waffle irons.

/if you think a gun's scary, wait 'til you have Cuisinarts coming at you and your family at 1000 ft/sec
 
2013-12-21 08:18:04 AM

jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..


By which you mean, "it's a waste of time and money."
 
2013-12-21 08:18:49 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Wait, so I DON'T know how much square footage of tarp is necessary to properly wrap a hooker shaped object?

Am I using too little or too much?


I would begin with the working assumption that the hooker is an ideal cylinder.
 
2013-12-21 08:20:07 AM

Billy Bathsalt: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Wait, so I DON'T know how much square footage of tarp is necessary to properly wrap a hooker shaped object?

Am I using too little or too much?

I would begin with the working assumption that the hooker is an ideal cylinder.


That made my day.
 
2013-12-21 08:22:43 AM

jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..

I'd go a step further. The laws enacted due to mass panic and paranoia usually have very negative consequences, but because they are attached to some regional or national trauma, there's almost no way to undo the harm.

I believe that's overly pessimistic. In my reading of American history, we have frequently revisited bad decisions and reversed them. The bad decision to allow slavery is one, Prohibition another - it just takes time and shifts in political fortunes.


Slavery had nothing to do with our own personal trauma, though. It was just an economical imperative.

You could possibly argue that Prohibition was trauma-oriented, but the people who spearheaded the movement were mostly religious folk trying to heal the wounds of others compounded by a few realists who knew how much cash money they could rake if it were illegal.

I'm talking about the kinds of knee-jerk laws enacted almost unanimously following a severe tragedy. I believe they do us harm. I believe that even decades after becoming law they are impossible to overturn. Now it's just part of life, and if we're lucky some unfortunate victim's name is splattered on it as well.
 
2013-12-21 08:23:11 AM

ghare: jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..

By which you mean, "it's a waste of time and money."


I don't think I understand what you are getting at. I said that there is nothing in this article that suggests we shouldn't address firearms violence, mental health policy, or anything else, on an intelligent, rational basis. The article only suggests that knee-jerk responses to rare events that are based on personal confirmation bias are not much use.
Are you arguing with me?
 
2013-12-21 08:27:48 AM

casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.

No. It is saying that law and policy crafted in response to extremely rare and catastrophic events is not rational law and policy, and is unlikely to have predictably desirable consequences..

I'd go a step further. The laws enacted due to mass panic and paranoia usually have very negative consequences, but because they are attached to some regional or national trauma, there's almost no way to undo the harm.

I believe that's overly pessimistic. In my reading of American history, we have frequently revisited bad decisions and reversed them. The bad decision to allow slavery is one, Prohibition another - it just takes time and shifts in political fortunes.

Slavery had nothing to do with our own personal trauma, though. It was just an economical imperative.

You could possibly argue that Prohibition was trauma-oriented, but the people who spearheaded the movement were mostly religious folk trying to heal the wounds of others compounded by a few realists who knew how much cash money they could rake if it were illegal.

I'm talking about the kinds of knee-jerk laws enacted almost unanimously following a severe tragedy. I believe they do us harm. I believe that even decades after becoming law they are impossible to overturn. Now it's just part of life, and if we're lucky some unfortunate victim's name is splattered on it as well.


I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.
 
2013-12-21 08:30:35 AM

jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.


I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.
 
2013-12-21 08:32:55 AM
As an old guy, I remember the days before CNN and it's introduction of 24 hour news coverage. These things get beat into the ground by day three of constant questioning of witnesses, family members, ad nauseum. Mass murders have occurred in the United States since the days of In Cold Blood in the 1950s Kansas through the Helter Skelter killings in the 1960s, the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in 1984 (21 dead) and the Luby's Massacre in 1991 (23 dead). The article is correct that mass murders have always happened and will continue to happen since there will always be crazy people out there who want to take out their frustrations on the world around them. And this is not just an American phenomenon. It happens in countries all over the world such as Norway in 2011 (85 dead).
 
2013-12-21 08:34:22 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Wait, so I DON'T know how much square footage of tarp is necessary to properly wrap a hooker shaped object?

Am I using too little or too much?


It's better to er on the part of too much tarp.
And if you have warrants, don't leave a stiff lying around in your van wrapped in carpet during summer in Texas, because if it's impounded, somebody is gonna notice the smell, or the maggots rolling out from under a door or something.
This actally happened to a complete azzole I once knew.
He had to stop to steal a Harley on the way to dump what was left of his ex.
Harley turned out to be a bait job, but the stiff sat 5 days in the van, in 100 degree heat.
Eeeewwww.
I'd say forget chain guns and go with anhydrous ammonia for real effect.
Not that I'd ever encourage ya to do anything like that.
You seem to be able to think outside the box.
Good Luck Hunter!
 
2013-12-21 08:37:29 AM

casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.


Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".
 
2013-12-21 08:43:02 AM

jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.

Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".


I'm not so sure! Both slavery and Prohibition were hugely supported by large majorities. In my opinion, that is necessarily mob mentality. I dunno, call me Mr. Anti-Democracy if you want. I long for the ideal of a Philosopher King, except even he would suffer from essentially the same problems. I don't know what to think about Humans. Any advice?
 
2013-12-21 08:44:16 AM

viciousbackyardkiller: As an old guy, I remember the days before CNN and it's introduction of 24 hour news coverage. These things get beat into the ground by day three of constant questioning of witnesses, family members, ad nauseum. Mass murders have occurred in the United States since the days of In Cold Blood in the 1950s Kansas through the Helter Skelter killings in the 1960s, the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in 1984 (21 dead) and the Luby's Massacre in 1991 (23 dead). The article is correct that mass murders have always happened and will continue to happen since there will always be crazy people out there who want to take out their frustrations on the world around them. And this is not just an American phenomenon. It happens in countries all over the world such as Norway in 2011 (85 dead).


The interesting thing is they said about 20 mass murders occur annually in the US, with a peak of 27 in the 90s. The CDC reports that we average about 2.5 mass shootings annually with 2012 being the worst at 7. What are these other 17-18 annual mass murders committed with then? Cause that's almost one bi-weekly and I'm pretty sure I can only recall a few in the past couple of years, or does the media only report the ones with guns cause arson doesn't get the ratings? I think the article is more damning of our 24hr news cycle than anything.
 
2013-12-21 08:49:48 AM
Left wing solution: More restrictions on guns & who can own them.
What if they're wrong? Only the bad guys have guns.

Right wing solution: Give everyone more guns. Arm teachers.
What if they're wrong? More guns = more shootings, more violence, more suicides (teaching can be a depressing job...)

My solution: Free universal high quality mental health care for all.
What if I'm wrong, and it doesn't reduce mass shootings? We still end up with a happier, healthier society.
 
2013-12-21 08:55:58 AM

casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.

Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".

I'm not so sure! Both slavery and Prohibition were hugely supported by large majorities. In my opinion, that is necessarily mob mentality. I dunno, call me Mr. Anti-Democracy if you want. I long for the ideal of a Philosopher King, except even he would suffer from essentially the same problems. I don't know what to think about Humans. Any advice?


Yes - if you are not taking drugs you are supposed to be taking - start taking them. If you are taking drugs you are not supposed to be taking, stop.
 
2013-12-21 08:58:09 AM

jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.

Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".

I'm not so sure! Both slavery and Prohibition were hugely supported by large majorities. In my opinion, that is necessarily mob mentality. I dunno, call me Mr. Anti-Democracy if you want. I long for the ideal of a Philosopher King, except even he would suffer from essentially the same problems. I don't know what to think about Humans. Any advice?

Yes - if you are not taking drugs you are supposed to be taking - start taking them. If you are taking drugs you are not supposed to be taking, stop.


Ahh, you're such a gentle kidder. I've enjoyed our time together.
 
2013-12-21 08:59:35 AM

CokeBear: Left wing solution: More restrictions on guns & who can own them.
What if they're wrong? Only the bad guys have guns.

Right wing solution: Give everyone more guns. Arm teachers.
What if they're wrong? More guns = more shootings, more violence, more suicides (teaching can be a depressing job...)

My solution: Free universal high quality mental health care for all.
What if I'm wrong, and it doesn't reduce mass shootings? We still end up with a happier, healthier society.


When it comes to the govt you get either free or high quality, take your pick.
 
2013-12-21 08:59:52 AM

GodComplex: viciousbackyardkiller: As an old guy, I remember the days before CNN and it's introduction of 24 hour news coverage. These things get beat into the ground by day three of constant questioning of witnesses, family members, ad nauseum. Mass murders have occurred in the United States since the days of In Cold Blood in the 1950s Kansas through the Helter Skelter killings in the 1960s, the San Ysidro McDonald's Massacre in 1984 (21 dead) and the Luby's Massacre in 1991 (23 dead). The article is correct that mass murders have always happened and will continue to happen since there will always be crazy people out there who want to take out their frustrations on the world around them. And this is not just an American phenomenon. It happens in countries all over the world such as Norway in 2011 (85 dead).

The interesting thing is they said about 20 mass murders occur annually in the US, with a peak of 27 in the 90s. The CDC reports that we average about 2.5 mass shootings annually with 2012 being the worst at 7. What are these other 17-18 annual mass murders committed with then? Cause that's almost one bi-weekly and I'm pretty sure I can only recall a few in the past couple of years, or does the media only report the ones with guns cause arson doesn't get the ratings? I think the article is more damning of our 24hr news cycle than anything.


Four fatalities is a pretty low threshold. A guy can off his wife, two kids and himself to meet that criteria. These things are just a blip on the news radar nowadays, unless high profile (meaning pretty blonde 14 year old white girl is kidnapped). If a guy back in the sticks kills his family sometimes it doesn't even make national news, just local or regional. Then it's gone, just another statistic. News has always been sensationalistic, always will be. It just keeps getting worse. Try watching the Today Show sometime and attempt to spot a non-celebrity story in the top three important stories of the day. People are more interested in the new Beyonce album than they are in hearing about people who are suffering loss. Just keeping it fluffy for the ratings. I agree that 24 hour news has become worthless for hearing useful/interesting information.
 
2013-12-21 09:01:29 AM

Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.


That's exactly what I got from it. Short version? Shiat happens.
 
2013-12-21 09:01:39 AM

casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.

Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".

I'm not so sure! Both slavery and Prohibition were hugely supported by large majorities. In my opinion, that is necessarily mob mentality. I dunno, call me Mr. Anti-Democracy if you want. I long for the ideal of a Philosopher King, except even he would suffer from essentially the same problems. I don't know what to think about Humans. Any advice?

Yes - if you are not taking drugs you are supposed to be taking - start taking them. If you are taking drugs you are not supposed to be taking, stop.

Ahh, you're such a gentle kidder. I've enjoyed our time together.


i18.photobucket.com
The Taste of Banzo's Sword

Matajuro Yagyu was the son of a famous swordsman. His father, believing that his son's work was too mediocre to anticipate mastership, disowned him.
So Matajuro went to Mount Futara and there found the famous swordsman Banzo. But Banzo confirmed the father's judgment. "You wish to learn swordsmanship under my guidance?" asked Banzo. "You cannot fulfill the requirements."
"But if I work hard, how many years will it take me to become a master?" persisted the youth.
"The rest of your life," replied Banzo.
"I cannot wait that long," explained Matajuro. "I am willing to pass through any hardship if only you will teach me. If I become your devoted servant, how long might it be?"
"Oh, maybe ten years," Banzo relented.
"My father is getting old, and soon I must take care of him," continued Matajuro. "If I work far more intensively, how long would it take me?"
"Oh, maybe thirty years," said Banzo.
"Why is that?" asked Matajuro. "First you say ten and now thirty years. I will undergo any hardship to master this art in the shortest time!"
"Well," said Banzo, "in that case you will have to remain with me for seventy years. A man in such a hurry as you are to get results seldom learns quickly."
"Very well," declared the youth, understanding at last that he was being rebuked for impatience, "I agree."
Matajuro was told never to speak of fencing and never to touch a sword. He cooked for his master, washed the dishes, made his bed, cleaned the yard, cared for the garden, all without a word of swordsmanship.
Three years passed. Still Matajuro labored on. Thinking of his future, he was sad. He had not even begun to learn the art to which he had devoted his life.
But one day Banzo crept up behind him and gave him a terrific blow with a wooden sword.
The following day, when Matajuro was cooking rice, Banzo again sprang upon him unexpectedly.
After that, day and night, Matajuro had to defend himself from unexpected thrusts. Not a moment passed in any day that he did not have to think of the taste of Banzo's sword.
He learned so rapidly he brought smiles to the face of his master. Matajuro became the greatest swordsman in the land.
 
2013-12-21 09:02:51 AM
Myth 4: Violent entertainment, especially video games, are causally linked to mass murder

Social science researchers have been unable to establish a direct causal link that proves the consumption of violent entertainment leads to violent behaviour.
"Much was written in the popular press about the fact that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza spent long hours alone in the basement of his Newtown home playing violent video games," the researchers wrote.
"However, his gaming may be more a symptom of his personality and temperament than the cause. As a socially awkward youngster, reportedly with Asperger's syndrome, his social isolation may be the key to his preoccupation with gaming as well as his rampage against an unwelcoming society."


I can't believe a news site has finally realized this
 
2013-12-21 09:04:16 AM
The difficult thing about being a mass murderer is not the murdering part but the mass part.
 
2013-12-21 09:13:07 AM
"It is hard to imagine that a vengeful student, who is willing to die by police gunfire or by his or her own hand, would be dissuaded by knowing that the faculty were armed. He may even welcome the chance to shoot it out with the principal at high noon in the school cafeteria".

This theory is falsified by the most recent (failed) mass shooting. When an armed deputy - working as a school resource officer - confronted him with a gun, the kid committed suicide instead of "welcoming the chance to shoot it out." The whole situation was over in less than two minutes.
 
2013-12-21 09:14:26 AM

jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: casual disregard: jso2897: I don't think that sufficient, clear data exist to support your view.
Data does exist to support the simple assertion that our society has made bad decisions and then changed them later. I do not buy your theory of "different types" of bad decisions.
I am not being argumentative, but I just don't agree with you. Sorry.

I understand, and I can see your point of view. I'm just very reluctant to go with the mob mentality in most cases.

Nothing that I have said has anything, even remotely, to do with any "mob mentality".

I'm not so sure! Both slavery and Prohibition were hugely supported by large majorities. In my opinion, that is necessarily mob mentality. I dunno, call me Mr. Anti-Democracy if you want. I long for the ideal of a Philosopher King, except even he would suffer from essentially the same problems. I don't know what to think about Humans. Any advice?

Yes - if you are not taking drugs you are supposed to be taking - start taking them. If you are taking drugs you are not supposed to be taking, stop.

Ahh, you're such a gentle kidder. I've enjoyed our time together.

[i18.photobucket.com image 400x493]
The Taste of Banzo's Sword

Matajuro Yagyu was the son of a famous swordsman. His father, believing that his son's work was too mediocre to anticipate mastership, disowned him.
So Matajuro went to Mount Futara and there found the famous swordsman Banzo. But Banzo confirmed the father's judgment. "You wish to learn swordsmanship under my guidance?" asked Banzo. "You cannot fulfill the requirements."
"But if I work hard, how many years will it take me to become a master?" persisted the youth.
"The rest of your life," replied Banzo.
"I cannot wait that long," explained Matajuro. "I am willing to pass through any hardship if only you will teach me. If I become your devoted servant, how long might it be?"
"Oh, maybe ten years," Banzo relented.
"My father is getting old, and soon I mu ...


Heheh, I like stories.

Rashomon is one of my favorites. All the material witnesses are unreliable and probably inherently unethical. The key moment is the ending which just barely restores my faith in humanity.
 
2013-12-21 09:20:27 AM

CowardlyLion: Shotgun Justice: Ironically, an Australian website neglected to mention the Australian solution to mass shootings: the removal of (most) guns from the civilian population.

Yeah, but it's not like the problem was solved: people in Australia have taken to killing masses of people with knives, baseball bats, and waffle irons.

/if you think a gun's scary, wait 'til you have Cuisinarts coming at you and your family at 1000 ft/sec


I'm not saying spree (or mass) violence wouldn't remain, but the death toll from those type of events is much smaller than when a gun is used on average.  Where people can't outrun a bullet, a psycho with a knife would have to chase down every victim.  And then fight them when they caught them.
 
2013-12-21 09:27:01 AM

CokeBear: My solution: Free universal high quality mental health care for all.
What if I'm wrong, and it doesn't reduce mass shootings? We still end up with a happier, healthier society.


I am sure all those unemployed people with their psych degrees would love your jobs program for them.

Or will it be a boon for the pharmaceutical industry as the already over medicated US population becomes more medicated as more people are diagnosed with the ever increasing number of new disorders and syndromes.

Granted there are people who are need these meds and are helped by them but I am sure not in the numbers now being "treated".

And mental health care becomes like going to the DMV. When it is "free" you get what you pay for.


70 Percent of Americans take Prescription Drugs

the second most common prescription was for antidepressants

Antidepressants and opioids are most common among young and middle-aged adults. Cardiovascular drugs are most commonly prescribed in older adults. Women receive more prescriptions than men across several drug groups, especially antidepressants: Nearly 1 in 4 women ages 50-64 are on an antidepressant.
Then there is the whole Ritalin ADD doping up our children scam.


Of course "free" government provided mental health care would provide yet another avenue for government in our lives. Will your mental health care records be digitized and available to the government (to include IRS, DHS etc etc) like your medical records under Obamacare? Now government has access to info about your treatment for STDs, getting an abortion etc, etc. So under your more free stuff for everyone game plan they would also get to know if you stressed out over any mental health issues in detail (If your fine with that then shelve your outrage over the NSA thing). I wonder how the idea of government having access would keep some people from getting treatment.

G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate anyone?
 
2013-12-21 09:27:55 AM

Tommy Moo: So the conclusion this article is reaching is basically that these incidents are inevitable, and that we literally shouldn't bother trying to do anything to curtail them? That we should simply accept that a certain level of this is going to happen every year? It's a bleak way of looking at things, albeit not necessarily wrong.


Since they're incredibly rare and extremely difficult to predict, yeah a few of them probably are inevitable. It's a scary thought, but you're really more likely to die in some more mundane way, like a car accident during a trip to the grocery store. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try anything, but they're already so rare that expecting major results isn't realistic.
 
2013-12-21 09:32:45 AM
Shotgun Justice:
Where people can't outrun a bullet, a psycho with a knife would have to chase down every victim.

Or use other options, like arson or explosives.
 
2013-12-21 09:35:26 AM

GodComplex: I think the article is more damning of our 24hr news cycle than anything.


I think constant media coverage nowadays hurts more than it helps. It's one thing to be informed of what's going on in the world, but TV news is trying their best to make everyone fearful and paranoid at all times, and it's just not healthy in my opinion. They make everything out to be an emergency, and 99% of the time you as the viewer either aren't directly effected, or can't do anything about it anyway.
 
2013-12-21 09:39:13 AM

cirby: "It is hard to imagine that a vengeful student, who is willing to die by police gunfire or by his or her own hand, would be dissuaded by knowing that the faculty were armed. He may even welcome the chance to shoot it out with the principal at high noon in the school cafeteria".

This theory is falsified by the most recent (failed) mass shooting. When an armed deputy - working as a school resource officer - confronted him with a gun, the kid committed suicide instead of "welcoming the chance to shoot it out." The whole situation was over in less than two minutes.


And even if it doesn't deter or scare them off, you still need someone to respond as soon as possible. The longer you wait the worse it is, since it's not a hostage situation where they're going to hole up in the building, but a race against time.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report