sculptor
Valued Senior Member
minors ...susceptible to impression
Should these then be subjected to watching murder and mayhem?
While being protected from words like : shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.(thanx George)
What caused a person to become a mass killer?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
minors ...susceptible to impression
Should these then be subjected to watching murder and mayhem?
While being protected from words like : shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.(thanx George)
Anything but gun control, huh?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
...real-world events?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
.........................kinda depends on how you read the 2nd and 14th amendments.........
In Heller, Scalia opined:
"... It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. ... "
(You gotta wonder what he is getting at------?)
....................................................................................
Personally, I'm a one shot one kill kind of a guy, damned proud of my skill of marksmanship. I never load more'n one bullet, and don't do that until I'm comfortable with the target.
I have no love for automatic weapons and have no respect for those who feel they need them.
That being said: I respect those who would burden themselves with the time and expense of securing the means to insure the maintenance of a free state---------My personal free state! God bless you everyone.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
We do(cepting maybe at gun shows?) and the LostWages guy would've passed every one.
(Castaneda) If you accept that "crazy" is outside the bubble of the tonal, then devices to identify things of the nagual will not work if designed to test things within the tonal.
.........................
alternately:
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows..."
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
define please
The news is violent.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Is that a necessary prerequisite for being newsworthy?
and, then
we have "entertainment"
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think this is drifting away from the psychology of a killer toward the academic, political discussion about mass media.
Good point on which to start a new thread.
Can we stay on-topic, please?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
seems a moot point as nobody else if offering up a causal factor in the psychological state of a mass murderer
mine was an hypothesis which I believe to be the most likely uniform causal factor(among many)
So you equate natural ageing death, or death due to natural calamities, to the death caused by these mindless morons.
maybe this will help point some clues in the right direction. if all laws were rescinded tomorrow, do you think the 1% classification of sociopath/psychopaths would stay the same? the truth is people didn't change, just the circumstances which everyone's barometer of what they are willing to do vs risk-assessment/repercussions may change.
he killed because he was suicidal obviously and didn't care about society. do you think one or the other is unique? do people really believe that all people obey the law because they respect the law? if they just respect the law then a stop sign should be enough, right? we wouldn't need police to write tickets or haul people to jail etc. but without consequences we would see a different scenario of more people breaking the law. more like we would actually see that there are more sociopaths than we realize. i remember a thread i read about some film where there was no law one day a year and many posted that they would take the opportunity to indulge in rape, murder and mayhem too if that were the case in real life. does this mean these people do that now? of course not but if the circumstances allowed such society would realize many people only obey the law due to risk/punishment to themselves, not respect it for the reasons behind it always. that's what punishment and repercussions are for. if society actually respected laws, then no repercussions would be needed to enforce it.
why is this truth so hard to grasp? is it because it shocks someone to realize their are more assholes in the world just because these same people are law-abiding generally? and? so? or more like there are people who have the gumption to do some extreme actions such as this? i think it's the latter.
hello, it takes work, planning and is a personal risk to break serious laws and most people don't want to go to prison and don't want a criminal record. and that is what pretty much drives most people's actions and that's self-preservation foremost. newsflash: not always because people care about others, are actually ethical etc.
he killed because he was suicidal obviously and didn't care about society. do you think one or the other is unique? do people really believe that all people obey the law because they respect the law? if they just respect the law then a stop sign should be enough, right? we wouldn't need police to write tickets or haul people to jail etc. but without consequences we would see a different scenario of more people breaking the law. more like we would actually see that there are more sociopaths than we realize. i remember a thread i read about some film where there was no law one day a year and many posted that they would take the opportunity to indulge in rape, murder and mayhem too if that were the case in real life. does this mean these people do that now? of course not but if the circumstances allowed such society would realize many people only obey the law due to risk/punishment to themselves, not respect it for the reasons behind it always. that's what punishment and repercussions are for. if society actually respected laws, then no repercussions would be needed to enforce it.
why is this truth so hard to grasp? is it because it shocks someone to realize their are more assholes in the world just because these same people are law-abiding generally? and? so? or more like there are people who have the gumption to do some extreme actions such as this? i think it's the latter.
hello, it takes work, planning and is a personal risk to break serious laws and most people don't want to go to prison and don't want a criminal record. and that is what pretty much drives most people's actions and that's self-preservation foremost. newsflash: not always because people care about others, are actually ethical etc.
Last edited:
The OP is all about finding why some individuals get into such "extreme actions".
and i just gave one. he was suicidal (didn't care about consequences) and didn't care about society or anymore. do the math. it's not that hard to figure out.
Even a suicidal person needs further cause to kill. A suicidal person need not have tendency to kill and die.
Take for example suicide squads, are they same as any suicidal person?
evidently he didn't care about society. wasn't that mentioned? yes, it was. now do you think that is unique? let me tell you it isn't. what makes it shocking to society is that someone would go to such planning to carry it out and take their revenge out on society en-masse. most people might go after whoever personally they want revenge on but everyone's psychology is different. this person may have disliked society as a whole but many people feel that way too but they don't carry out such actions. for one, to most people, going to prison or dying to kill others isn't worth it nor are other people worth dying or killing for.
what is dishonest about society is that it's got lulled into a false sense of reality because of laws which govern 'outward' behavior which society tends to take for granted as an extension of internal values or reality which is not necessarily the case. if most people really were that humane and ethical they wouldn't go about hurting others in every other way possible (and people get creative and deviant with it) besides murder which could put you away for life or even result in death penalty. it's obvious why murder is seen as more shocking not just because of the loss of another's life but the risk of the loss of your own which is usually the deterrant for most.
the truth is society is more shocked at the total lack of care for their own life that they would take out others along with them in the most final way.
Last edited:
I do not think, a dislike for society as such would lead to such extreme actions. One french (or was it Egyptian co pilot) guy crashed the aircraft with hundreds on board, he did not have any hatred for society as such.
In twin tower case, it could have been, support for their community, which led to suicide operations. In Mumbai attack, it was religious lunacy which led to mass killings.
In this I missed the track that it is not necessary that a person who takes such extreme action, would want to kill himself too. Not necessary. So talking about related suicide only could be partially off track.
well, there you go as that's additional reasons and psychology of some people's motives.