Was just a guess but if it actually was 40 words does that mean that I'm one of the "few exceptional ones" based on my superior estimation skills? You're spouting off about McVeigh and how calling people terrorists prevents more violence but didn't the biggest terroristic attack in our nation's history happen six years after OKC? You're not some visionary that knows all about how to combat gun violence, you're just an idiot.
Mass shooting at Old National Bank in Downtown Louisville
- Thread starter Nightwish84
- Start date
- Status
No matter how many times you misstate my position it will not help you because I am right. We need to change how we react to public mass shootings. We need to demonize the act. To smear the perpetrators and make them the lowest creature alive crawling on the planet and place them alongside the worst terrorists in history.
Not to deter the one who just did the crime as that is obviously too late, but to deter the future copycats looking at the act and evaluating what it accomplished to see if they could picture themselves dying similarly and what it would accomplish. If they calculate a mass shooting will cause much pain and attention, then it will remain attractive. If they believe they'll live as reviled in history alongside the lowest terrorists to ever live then maybe it won't be so attractive an option.
That’s one example, and, admittedly, a good one.
But we still haven’t covered Native American genocide.
The continued racism and normalized white supremacy that was prevalent nationwide from reconstruction through after the Cvil Rights Era (100+’years)
The treatment of certain groups of immigrants in the early 1900s
Th way we treated gay folks and AIDS patients for most of the 20th Century
My point is it’s OK to teach the bad stuff too so future generations don’t repeat past mistakes. Presenting a highly sanitized sunshine and rainbows portrait of American history doesn’t do anyone any favors. Middle school and up is the time to teach the not-so-rosy parts.
In what world do you think the media isn't demonizing mass shooters? How am I misstating your opinion? You're the one that gave McVeigh as the example of how the media is supposed to treat terrorists and yet there were/are still terrorist attacks after that happened.
These people will be DEAD, they won't care how they're viewed in history. You don't have the ability to actively worry about your legacy when you're dead in the ground. I understand that you can't seem to grasp this argument but no one's mind works in the way that they genuinely think "I was gonna shoot up this school but that could tarnish my legacy so now I won't."
Look. I think we can all agree that we don't need to show the perpetrators face over and over again. But to suggest that what is nothing more than a smear campaign is actually a large deterrent...ridiculous.
But it all makes sense when I realize you're just parroting a worse version of what Bill Maher said a week or two ago. Seeing as you said your views align with his.
We have every white kid in America acting like they're from Compton, CA. but you guys still cannot see or fathom the power of media. OK. Good luck with your sensing sessions and go ahead and try to take away guns from people and still ever hope to win any state in the Midwest in an election again. You geniuses are too sharp for me.
Everything is political if it requires a law to fix it.
The majority of Americans are advocating for stricter gun laws and greater access to mental health care. Not sure of the percentage of people who think simply calling shooters terrorists will equate to any kind of change in the amount of mass shootings. Maybe you have better data than the rest of us.
Also not sure what a sensing session is nor can I say it 5x fast. Sounds like some kind of ghost tour experiment to me.
If you take the opportunity to research the data you hold up to disprove his comment....the definition of a mass shooter is NOT the definition most use with mass shootings. I think that we all are talking about "rampage" shooters. School shooters. The ones who use AR15s. To a "kid" those are nearly all 100% mentally ill. Gang members who shoot 4 in a drug deal gone wrong and use a Glock...and are on your list above...that is not what we are discussing here and you know that. Chicago on a weekend is not the same.
Methods
We collated potential incidents of mass murder worldwide between 1900 and 2019 and perpetrator names through an extensive review of English-language databases of murderers and mass murderers publicly available in print and online. Some databases included only mass murderers (e.g. Everytown for Gun Safety, Stanford), while others also included killings involving less than three victims in single incidents, or spree and serial killers (e.g. Murderpedia.org). For the present study, we focused on personal-cause mass murders, meaning those driven by personal motivations and not occurring within the contexts of war, state- or group-sponsored terrorism, gang activity, or organized crime. Mass murders stemming from family matters and other killings of close associates were not excluded. Felonious mass homicides with automobiles or other vehicles, related to impairment or recklessness, were excluded. Additionally, we employed the Congressional definition of mass murder, involving three or more fatalities, excluding perpetrators. We reviewed 14 785 cases of murder in total for potential cases of mass murder. For a complete description of our methods, sources examined, and a flow diagram of our search results, see the online Supplement, Supplementary Table S1 and Fig. S1. Perpetrators better categorized as spree killers, due to having killed two (three for the current analyses) or more people in more than one location or at more than one point in time, with no cooling-off period (which we defined as killing across one week or less) between murders, were retained for separate analysis. To be conservative, perpetrators who committed any two episodes of murder with any victim count more than 7 days apart were excluded, irrespective of any connections between murders. Critically, while we gathered names and incidents from academic (e.g. Stanford University), governmental/public (e.g. FBI data), and lay/popular (e.g. Murderpedia, Mother Jones) sources, all other information in our database was obtained from contemporaneous, primary sources and reports (i.e. we did not use any information from the non-primary sources listed in online Supplementary Table S1, beyond perpetrator names, except for the Everytown for Gun Safety report). This was done to reduce the possibility of misclassifying cases of mass murder in which psychotic symptoms had been overlooked or mischaracterized by previous reports. All data came from contemporaneous, English-language media reports, as well as court/police reports when available online (11%). When information was available in one of these other sources (e.g. Stanford database) or on a website (e.g. Wikipedia, Mother Jones), but no English-language, contemporaneous, primary source was available, we excluded the case (N = 501). We also excluded mass murders for which we lacked information on victim count or method (N = 369), the minimal amount of information required for inclusion. While we did not require demographic information, per se, this was available for most perpetrators.
Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database
I'm not interested in some bs clinical analysis. Anyone who thinks killing a bunch of people before killing themselves or suiciding by cop absolutely has something wrong with their head. Those are not the actions of someone in a sound state of mind.
While it might be true that these shooters may not have severe textbook mental illness, I think that is more of an argument of semantics.
Whether it’s labeled as mental illness or psychopathy or general disregard of life, what’s undeniable is that possessing the ability to slaughter innocent people and end your life is not normal in any way. I don’t know what to label that other than mental illness.
Of course none of this is to sidestep the gun issue, which is real.
Or maybe we just put restrictions and rules on alcohol to limit incidents?
Nobody really needs high proof whisky. Nobody needs to drink 100+ proof. The founders never envisioned distilleries that could produce that volume of alcohol.
Punish good people for the deeds of others is always a good idea. What kinds of cars are drunk drivers using? I think we may find out that it is mostly SUVs hitting people so we should outlaw all those. These dangerous SUVs are like military vehicles anyway. More suited for war. We've got to do something about all these dangerous SUVs that are killing all our children.
It’s a bad analogy. Cars are vehicles used for transportations and guns are weapons that literally only exist to damage other things. Not sure how you think those things are similar.
Let’s keep it consistent. Is there any good reason I should not be able to own a nuclear bomber?
You're correct. I got upset and sidetracked the thread from a very worthy subject so I deleted my posts.
The back and forth trolling is the reason we can never solve any important issues.
I'm gonna be honest, I have no idea what you're asking here. Who the hell is Mother Jones
Only if you include suicides. Without guns they would use some other method.
The data in his study came from Mother Jones. Mother Jones is a leftist rag, like Slate, Rolling Stone, or Daily Kos. Its not a serious source. Kinda like using data from the SPLC.
Ohhh 😅 I've never heard of that commie rag before. I was like "who the hell is Mother Jones." I'm with you now. Definitely agreed.
Do you consider a suicide using a gun a gun crime? Gun violence? I believe 60% of all gun deaths are suicide. The top end number is used to sensationalize.
If the only importance to you pertaining gun deaths is gun deaths where someone shoots someone else then that’s what is important to you.
But to me, you are kind of arguing against yourself. Not only are the majority of gun deaths in adolescents and teens caused by gun violence, but they also are a major contributor to adolescent suicide.
Liberals thought it would be a good thing to hold adolescents committing adult heinous crimes to a lesser standard. You know who loved that? Gang leaders. The amount of serious and violent crimes committed by inner city kids under the age of 18 rose dramatically. Charge and prosecute murder as murder. Departing from adult penalties should be the exception, not the norm.
Yea I tend to tune out when the first statement is “liberals think…” or “conservatives think..” I’d be more apt to discuss if we were weighing ramifications of charging adolescents as adults and whether it’s ethical to do that.
But given the claim, I’d be curious on data that supports increase in juvenile gun violence predicated on not trying juveniles as adults
If you're referring to the study I posted it is from Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and good luck finding a better source than that in the field:
The Columbia University Department of Psychiatry is one of the largest in the country in terms of faculty size as well as state, federal, and foundation research support. We are currently among the top-ranked in the nation for Psychiatry in the US News & World Report Best Hospital rankings, as well as in psychiatric research funding from the National Institutes of Health. We have extraordinary clinical, educational, and research resources. Our faculty includes over 400 psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and neurobehavioral scientists. Clinical facilities and laboratories of the Psychiatry Department are located in a large number of institutions and healthcare systems. These include NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, the New York State Psychiatric Institute, the New York State Office of Mental Health, and the Washington Heights Community Mental Health Center. The Department of Psychiatry also houses the Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, the Mind/Brain Institute, a Howard Hughes Research Institute and the Stanley Center for Applied Neuroscience of Bipolar Disorders.
Here's the link again to what I posted so nobody gets mislead again by false claims it is from Mother Jones:
Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Mass Shootings?
But serious mental illness—specifically psychosis—is not a key factor in most mass shootings or other types of mass murder. Approximately 5% of mass shootings are related to severe mental illness. And although a much larger number of mass shootings (about 25%) are associated with non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses, including depression, and an estimated 23% with substance use, in most cases these conditions are incidental.
First DrH lies and says my study was mostly gang shooting and whatnot and when I prove that is a lie he then claims Mother Jones wrote it?
I'm going to start ignoring this guy as he is a proven liar IMO and is purposefully running around being a douchbag for some reason.
I'm going to start ignoring this guy as he is a proven liar IMO and is purposefully running around being a douchbag for some reason.
Here is the actual unedited research paper clearly showing this is the work of Columbia University and their unequaled staff and again, nobody in this thread can find a more credible source on the topic at hand than I am providing:
Psychotic symptoms in mass shootings v. mass murders not involving firearms: findings from the Columbia mass murder database
Gary Brucato, Paul S. Appelbaum, Hannah Hesson, Eileen A. Shea, Gabriella Dishy, Kathryn Lee, Tyler Pia, Faizan Syed, Alexandra Villalobos, Melanie M. Wall, Jeffrey A. Lieberman and Ragy R. Girgis Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Drive Unit 31, New York, NY 10032
DrH is a proven purposeful liar and we all know that now.
There's a big difference between not sanitizing American history and promoting self-flagellation over the bad stuff. History is complicated. Looking at it through a 21st century prism is a fool's errand. All of those topics listed above were covered in my education and that of my kids. In the case of the Native American genocide, though, Native Americans were portrayed as a peace-loving people living in harmony with one another until the Europeans came along. Nothing can be further from the truth. Stronger tribes routinely wiped-out weaker tribes, quite brutally in many cases. Why? Because that's how civilizations expanded from the beginning of time. The strong subjugated the weak.
I'm not excusing historical atrocities, but I am saying that they need to be put in context. Slavery, racism, bigotry, conquest, etc. have been around forever. These are not uniquely American/western atrocities. Presenting them as such is as dangerous and dishonest as omitting them completely.
- Status
Similar threads
