|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 8, 2019 11:40:24 GMT -5
No one had ever started a GoFundMe for any of the other killer's families. How many of them had a daughter who was a victim? Dude's dead. He's not benefiting from anything anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 8, 2019 11:55:49 GMT -5
No one had ever started a GoFundMe for any of the other killer's families. How many of them had a daughter who was a victim? Dude's dead. He's not benefiting from anything anymore. That's my point. This has never happened before so this is new ethical ground. There had always been an unstated attitude about the killers family, that they should suffer for the killers sins. I'm curious to see how this plays out because it is unknown territory. I know how you feel and I'm feeling the same way but will the rest of the community feel the same way?? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 8, 2019 12:09:22 GMT -5
Let's say they took money from this fund an used it for a funeral for both their kids. Emotionally I would be unhappy about it, but rationally I think they are (probably) victims. Would you expect them to mourn only one kid? I mean, yeah, they might actually. But I'm not sure I would expect that of them.
Anyway, I would not be surprised if they refuse any money or gifts.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 8, 2019 12:16:34 GMT -5
Maybe you can blame the parents, at least indirectly. Per the following article, which was posted in some other thread (forgot which one) by hammer, there are four things shared by mass shooters: 1. exposure to early childhood trauma or violence at a young age, e.g., parental suicide, parental abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, bullying 2. the mass shooter encountered an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. In the TV show Criminal Minds, it's called a "stressor," or some recent event (e.g., divorce, loss of loved one, loss of job, loss of property) that triggers the murderous behavior. 3. the mass shooter studied the work of other mass shooters and sought validation for their motives 4. the mass shooter had the means to carry out their plans www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 8, 2019 12:19:53 GMT -5
I can say I don't relate to 3 of the 4 things listed above. The one thing I do share is that when I was in junior high and high school, I had a fascination for true crime stories, particularly serial killers, e.g., Jack the Ripper, Boston Strangler, Son of Sam, Charles Manson (more of a cult thing though), Ted Bundy. Went to the library a lot to borrow books on them. To be fair, I also did a lot of reading about Watergate. Anyway, I like to think it was an intellectual curiosity and in no way did I admire or did I wish to emulate these bastards. I'm referring, of course, to Nixon and his men.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 8, 2019 14:20:11 GMT -5
The "science" behind this is one tiny, marginal step above the old bedwetting, head injury serial killer tropes. 2 and 4 are common sense and 1 is so general that it will fit 70% of the populace
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Aug 8, 2019 15:12:48 GMT -5
The "science" behind this is one tiny, marginal step above the old bedwetting, head injury serial killer tropes. 2 and 4 are common sense and 1 is so general that it will fit 70% of the populace I would not consider this science per se. Certainly it is not hard science. This was an opinion piece based upon a rather extensive data collection effort where an attempt was made to draw some conclusions. Hence they (the conclusions) are statistical in nature. Any of the main points are arguable to some degree and although I have not attempted to submit any counter arguments, I believe I could at least provide counter examples to each stated point. However, at least this is an opinion piece based upon pretty solid raw data over a long time period versus many that pick out and attempt to identify one thing as the primary cause of mass shootings and back it up with little or no data.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 8, 2019 16:28:49 GMT -5
The "science" behind this is one tiny, marginal step above the old bedwetting, head injury serial killer tropes. 2 and 4 are common sense and 1 is so general that it will fit 70% of the populace I would not consider this science per se. Certainly it is not hard science. This was an opinion piece based upon a rather extensive data collection effort where an attempt was made to draw some conclusions. Hence they (the conclusions) are statistical in nature. Any of the main points are arguable to some degree and although I have not attempted to submit any counter arguments, I believe I could at least provide counter examples to each stated point. However, at least this is an opinion piece based upon pretty solid raw data over a long time period versus many that pick out and attempt to identify one thing as the primary cause of mass shootings and back it up with little or no data. Is the data solid? Forget 4, its a nullity and its inclusion is political. Of course every mass shooter has the means to be a mass shooter or else they wouldnt be a mass shooter. But 1 and 2, fit such a large swath of the population that 1 at least is also close to a nullity and almost all of the data for 2 is going to be corrupted by hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 10, 2019 15:08:30 GMT -5
Correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 11, 2019 19:19:52 GMT -5
A few thoughts
Harris and Kleebold- Once they began shooting and saw the carnage, how disensitized do you have to be to other human beings to feel no remorse and how does this happen to not only one human being but two? This applies to all the mass shooters? Wal-Mart in El Paso was so gruesome that even season investigators were scarred for life surveying the scene.
I have read countless articles of what they all have in common but even then the researches have hundreds of different theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 22:02:03 GMT -5
The main thing they have in common are weapons that no one outside our military should possess.
WHY do we want people to have weapons whose sole purpose is to kill many people in a short period of time? I will never understand this. And it will take many generations to rid our society of them, even if we were to start now. Which, of course, we won't.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 11, 2019 22:35:10 GMT -5
A few thoughts Harris and Kleebold- Once they began shooting and saw the carnage, how disensitized do you have to be to other human beings to feel no remorse and how does this happen to not only one human being but two? This applies to all the mass shooters? Wal-Mart in El Paso was so gruesome that even season investigators were scarred for life surveying the scene. I have read countless articles of what they all have in common but even then the researches have hundreds of different theories. This is incredibly ironic. I remember the time when you would talk about young black kids or hard working immigrants in your community with a little bit of empathy, but then you started parroting the same desensitizing rhetoric as the leaders you started admiring.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 12, 2019 3:26:57 GMT -5
A few thoughts Harris and Kleebold- Once they began shooting and saw the carnage, how disensitized do you have to be to other human beings to feel no remorse and how does this happen to not only one human being but two? This applies to all the mass shooters? Wal-Mart in El Paso was so gruesome that even season investigators were scarred for life surveying the scene. I have read countless articles of what they all have in common but even then the researches have hundreds of different theories. Scarred for life? It happened a week ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 21:15:48 GMT -5
He shot 26 people in 32 seconds. There is NO EXCUSE for having weapons like this available to the general public, let alone allowing people to walk around with them.
This insanity needs to end.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 14, 2019 7:09:19 GMT -5
|
|