Discussion in 'Parapsychology' started by Saint, Oct 5, 2017.
What caused a person to become a mass killer?
Is it just a vexing of anger?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We do not yet know.
I mean generally, the Las Vegas killer may have some specific reasons.
He surely did.
We don't know what they are.
Was he on any drug program ?
He should have written a note or something, but maybe that was part of his madness, there was no reason.
First of all your question is not related to parapsychology.
To your question:
We do not know what he 'reason' was.
It does not matter what his 'reason' was. No matter why he did it there is no possible viable reason to help us understand.
Let's say he did it for the glorification of god or he did it because he did not like country music, either reason is equally stupid and falls short of anything remotely rational.
No matter what we find out there is no reason that can make sense to a sane person.
He was born a human being.
15-year-old Morgan Geyser, a Wisconsin girl, repeatedly stabbed a classmate to impress the fictional horror character Slender Man. Geyser and another girl, Anissa Weier, admitted carrying out the 2014 attack on a classmate in a Milwaukee-area park. Their classmate survived her wounds. All three girls were 12 at the time.
"The media is the message."
If the media eschewed violence, we might(just might) find ourselves in a less violent society.
"The medium is the message" is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in any message it would transmit or convey, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the messageis perceived
Indeed. Media notoriety is the new currency.
We know he was irrational to the point of insanity. What difference does it make what his particular flavour of insanity was?
It may have been important to him. But so what? He's dead.
All our questioning of his motives does now is glorify his name and his actions. Which is likely what he wanted anyway.
Don't blame the media, she was mentally ill.
I don't think that what he meant.
I think what he means is: the attempted murder was a stunt to gain public notoriety.
But, by reporting it in detail, we do provide these nutters with the validation they seek.
We're getting better. We've stopped naming them. The crimes are reported, but they're anonymous. No glory handed out.
This is a very good question and very relevant when mindless killings are going on in almost every part of the globe.
We have terrorists who are killing innocents, we have Kim Jong Un who kills as if he is killing a fly, and we have kids shooting in campus and then have this guy who shoots blindly and kills 60 odd revellers. It's a question of mental sickness not any physical disability. They need treatment. But first they need to be identified.
the human species has been killing from start so this is not new. killing and murder is embedded into life. some do it literally, some metaphysically. lest one forget, look at nature. so then life and nature has a mental sickness overall.
Which rather supports a point I made earlier, that is:
The mentally weak or ill tend to be more influenced by the media's culture of violence.
If tighter gun control has the goal of depriving the nutters of the means, then does it not follow that denying the nutters of the desensitizing or acculturating influence of media violence could accomplish the same goal?
Maybe, but we. as a people cannot go there. You're talking about censorship.
It flies in the face of personal human freedom to control what others are allowed to experience.
No, because the mentally ill could be triggered by the Wizard of Oz.
We already have censorship.
The fcc censors censor out breasts, but not murder and mayhem.
That is sick.
The censors are all freaking nuts.
They censor content available to minors, a group of people we acknowledge as a society needs to be protected, and is not entitled to full rights of freedom as an adult is.
Note also, that minors are a clearly definable group with an unambiguous test. We do not have such a test to determine if a given adult is mentally ill and/or susceptible to impression. (Not even in principle. It is, after all, a right of adulthood to be influenced by one's environment.)
Separate names with a comma.