A debate for mass shootings

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-04-2017, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote:

No gif?  

There's the one that's been in your sig for the past decade.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-04-2017, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah, I know of a few now.  The one in the mall is the first one you mentioned.

I still think the good guy with a gun stopping a shooting is a lot more rare than the bad guy with a gun going on a shooting spree until the cops show up or they kill themselves.

Not sure why my writing was so small on that last post.

One reason is that very few people walk around armed comparatively speaking.  If someone were armed in the Aurora shootings then I imagine they would have used their weapon.  The Orlando nightclub.  If for no other reason that self-preservation.

[GMDino]

(10-04-2017, 05:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not sure why my writing was so small on that last post.

One reason is that very few people walk around armed comparatively speaking.  If someone were armed in the Aurora shootings then I imagine they would have used their weapon.  The Orlando nightclub.  If for no other reason that self-preservation.

Man, can you imagine everyone armed in that nightclub firing at whomever they thought was the "bad guy"?

But like I said: rare.

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2017, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Terrorist is a word that is rapidly losing all meaning,again thanks to insane overuse and a desire to label opponents with a loaded word.  It has joined racist, white supremacist and Nazi.  As Benton correctly pointed out terrorism is violence or the threat of violence in the furtherance of a cause.  Thus, everyone labeling the shooter as a terrorist is deliberately misusing the term.  Anyone labeling the NRA a terrorist organization is deliberately misusing the term.  We are rapidly approaching the point where, for many people, words only mean what they want them to mean.

Yes. Just as the phrase "mental illness" has become a catch-all.

Looking forward to the upcoming "War on Mental Illness".

(10-04-2017, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is only one law that would conceivably prevent further mass shootings, complete outlawing firearms and confiscating all that are currently in private hands.  Anything else is a pointless, feel good, appear to be doing something, gesture.  The level of planning this guy exhibited is insane, there is not a single law that would have stopped him; he had knowledge, money, time and enough intelligence to put this together.  Those things combined, or honestly any two, will trump any law you care to write. 

Yes. And a law to outlaw and confiscate firearms is self-defeating: creating a situation that well undoubtedly cause more violence and death in the process in order to prevent more violence and death.

And, yes. From every single thing I have read and heard, this guy did absolutely nothing illegal until he pulled the trigger. Also, he did nothing that would indicate any mental, personality or behavioral issues until that point.

Ain't true sociopaths something else?

There are no laws that would have prevented this.

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2017, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Man, can you imagine everyone armed in that nightclub firing at whomever they thought was the "bad guy"?

But like I said: rare.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-04-2017, 06:33 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Ain't true sociopaths something else?

Do you mean psychopath?  Farther end of that spectrum, usually associated with violence by the general population but actually takes many forms.

You've likely dealt with many highly functioning sociopaths/pyschopaths and never knew it.  I didn't dive into the research or read much more about it, but a study a while back estimated about 20% of CEO's have psychopathic traits (vs. @ 1% in the general population).  Cue the peanut gallery arguing it's 100%.....

[Bengalzona]

(10-04-2017, 06:48 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you mean psychopath?  Farther end of that spectrum, usually associated with violence by the general population but actually takes many forms.

You've likely dealt with many highly functioning sociopaths/pyschopaths and never knew it.  I didn't dive into the research or read much more about it, but a study a while back estimated about 20% of CEO's have psychopathic traits (vs. @ 1% in the general population).  Cue the peanut gallery arguing it's 100%.....

Yes, technically correct.

In common parlance, the terms are often used interchangeably as the behaviors are pretty much the same. But among the psych doc world, sociopath usually refers to someone with the symptoms whose behavior has been shaped by outside people and events, while psychopath refers to someone with innate causes of those behaviors.

The definitions have changed over the past thirty years. When I was in college, a sociopath was the general term for someone with non-empathetic behaviors (but with the ability to blend and function in society) and a psychopath was someone with psychosis (breaks from reality and generally unable to function in society). That is why I sometimes use the term sociopath.

And, yes, about 99.99% of psychopaths/sociopaths live somewhat normal lives without murdering anyone.

[Matt_Crimson]

Generally good points made around here. This thread basically came from an argument me and my wife were having about the Vegas shooting and I didn't see it as terrorism.

She said she sees it as terrorism because he killed and injured so many people. But I would goes as far as to say that terrorism actually doesn't need a body count or anyone injured for that matter in order for the event to be called terrorism. If someone blew up an empty stadium it would still be terrorism if the intention was to send some kind of message, political or otherwise.

I think that's something important to think abour. People often only want to call out terrorism when there's dead bodies on the ground or significant injury, but the truth is attacks without casualties is as much terrorism as attacks with massive casualties and too often emotions can cloud the way people view terrorism.

Which brings up another question. Does anyone believe the Charlottesville car attack was/was not terrorism?

[*michaelsean*]

My best attempt at differentiating a psychopath from a sociopath. Psychopaths are generally born. Sociopaths are generally made. Psychopaths have no moral code, no conscience, sociopaths have a skewed one. A psychopath will commit violence for the thrill of it often sexual. A sociopath will commit violence out of, to them, necessity. A psychopath could kill a person in his family as easily as a stranger. Not usually so with a sociopath. Sociopaths are often spontaneous where psychopaths can be very meticulous planners. Sociopaths can be treated by bringing their skewed moral compass back in alignment.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2017, 10:40 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Generally good points made around here. This thread basically came from an argument me and my wife were having about the Vegas shooting and I didn't see it as terrorism.

She said she sees it as terrorism because he killed and injured so many people. But I would goes as far as to say that terrorism actually doesn't need a body count or anyone injured for that matter in order for the event to be called terrorism. If someone blew up an empty stadium it would still be terrorism if the intention was to send some kind of message, political or otherwise.

I think that's something important to think abour. People often only want to call out terrorism when there's dead bodies on the ground or significant injury, but the truth is attacks without casualties is as much terrorism as attacks with massive casualties and too often emotions can cloud the way people view terrorism.

Which brings up another question. Does anyone believe the Charlottesville car attack was/was not terrorism?

Heck some believe he was just defending himself.

Hell, some believe the whole thing was a set up by "the left".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/05/congressman-suggests-soros-funded-charlottesville-nazis/737670001/

Quote:Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., suggested without evidence that a billionaire known for promoting progressive causes may have funded the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va., during an interview with Vice News published Thursday. 


Gosar said the Charlottesville rally, which led to the death of one counter-protester, could have been "created by the left" and that "George Soros is one of those individuals that helps back these individuals." 


The congressman made the comments during an interview focused on a lawsuit against him by a constituent who says Gosar violated her First Amendment rights when he blocked her on Facebook. 


Gosar said Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler was an "Obama sympathizer." Kessler confessed to holding liberal allegiances in the past — including voting for Obama and participating in Occupy Wall Street — but he has also expressed strong concerns about immigration and the threat of "white genocide." 

Gosar said billionaire investor George Soros "is one of those people that actually helps back these individuals. Who is he? I think he’s from Hungary. I think he was Jewish. And I think he turned in his own people to the Nazis." 



When asked directly if he thought Soros funded the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Gosar said, "Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?"



There is no evidence to support the theory. Gosar is echoing talking points that have been spouted by right-wing conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, who tends to see the work of George Soros behind everything. 


"George Soros survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary, and he has spent his life supporting efforts to ensure that such terrifying authoritarianism never takes root again," a spokeswoman for Soros' Open Society Foundation told Vice News. 



"He was 14 years old when the war ended. He did not collaborate with the Nazis. He did not help round up people. He did not confiscate anybody’s property. Such baseless allegations are insulting to the victims of the Holocaust, to all Jewish people, and to anyone who honors the truth. It is an affront to Mr. Soros and his family, who against the odds managed to survive one of the darkest moments in our history." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 10:40 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Which brings up another question. Does anyone believe the Charlottesville car attack was/was not terrorism?

No, not even a little.  Based on the evidence the incident appears to be a spur of the moment decision.  I think the guy got scared/angry and punched the gas.  How much discussion has there been about people blocking roads and people commenting on how they'd plow through the crowd?  I think, in the split second the human brain makes these types of decisions, all of that went through his head; fear, anger, annoyance, etc.  I don't think it's logical to think he thought something along the lines of, "If I plow my car through this group of people I'll be scaring them from protesting against white supremacy in the future".

The problem is you have racists out there in Guardian land who are upset that white shooters are called terrorists, stating that's a label for "brown" shooters.  This stems from both a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of terrorism (thanks media) and the fact that many people want to make every issue about ethnicity.  No one hesitated to label McVeigh a terrorist, because he clearly was one.  Trust me, if a white dude shot up a post office while yelling "Allah ackbar!" while doing it, he'd be labeled a terrorist in half a second.  Motivation makes an act terrorism, not skin color.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Heck some believe he was just defending himself.

Hell, some believe the whole thing was a set up by "the left".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/10/05/congressman-suggests-soros-funded-charlottesville-nazis/737670001/

As usual you aren't answering the question asked, just engaging in hyperbole.  Ballsofsteel doesn't need any competition, thank you.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2017, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As usual you aren't answering the question asked, just engaging in hyperbole.  Ballsofsteel doesn't need any competition, thank you.

As usual Joe Friday "knows" what someone else is doing.  Thank YOU!



Back to topic (as I posted) not only do not people think it wasn't terrorism (probably doesn't fit the definition well enough) but they don't even think the killer was wrong.  And the conspiracy theorists are blaming the "left" for starting the whole thing anyway.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 01:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: As usual Joe Friday "knows" what someone else is doing.  Thank YOU!

Trust that it's not just me who knows.

Quote:Back to topic (as I posted) not only do not people think it wasn't terrorism (probably doesn't fit the definition well enough) but they don't even think the killer was wrong.  And the conspiracy theorists are blaming the "left" for starting the whole thing anyway.

He asked our opinion, not the opinion of any right wing wackos you could dig up to make the other side seem idiotic.  Like I said, I'm not the only one wise to your bullshit.

[Belsnickel]

(10-06-2017, 12:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, not even a little.  Based on the evidence the incident appears to be a spur of the moment decision.  I think the guy got scared/angry and punched the gas.  How much discussion has there been about people blocking roads and people commenting on how they'd plow through the crowd?  I think, in the split second the human brain makes these types of decisions, all of that went through his head; fear, anger, annoyance, etc.  I don't think it's logical to think he thought something along the lines of, "If I plow my car through this group of people I'll be scaring them from protesting against white supremacy in the future".

It wasn't fear, it may have been anger, but it was intentional and planned. To go down that street at that speed the way that occurred, there is no other explanation. He traveled two blocks on that street.

Top of the street:


The stoplight at the top of that street is where he turned onto it. There was no one in this street at the time.

He crossed over the pedestrian mall at a high rate of speed seen in videos and continued down the street on the other side.

Bottom:


Where those people are standing is where he hit the crowd.

So while I can understand the argument that this wasn't terrorism because you may not think it was ideologically motivated, it was not a spur of the moment decision, there was intent behind his actions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-06-2017, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't fear, it may have been anger, but it was intentional and planned. To go down that street at that speed the way that occurred, there is no other explanation. He traveled two blocks on that street.

The stoplight at the top of that street is where he turned onto it. There was no one in this street at the time.

He crossed over the pedestrian mall at a high rate of speed seen in videos and continued down the street on the other side.


Where those people are standing is where he hit the crowd.

So while I can understand the argument that this wasn't terrorism because you may not think it was ideologically motivated, it was not a spur of the moment decision, there was intent behind his actions.

I'll concede the point based on your knowledge of the situation, locale.  Well argued.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2017, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trust that it's not just me who knows.



He asked our opinion, not the opinion of any right wing wackos you could dig up to make the other side seem idiotic.  Like I said, I'm not the only one wise to your bullshit.

The "right wing whacko" is an elected congressman and the story was in the USA Today today.  Wasn't hard to "dig" for anything.

But thanks again.  Maybe I can speak at the meeting of people who "know" some day.  I'd like to meet them.