Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

The purpose or logic behind mass shootings.

Recommended Posts

What is the 'logic' behind mass shootings seem to me a question that is dead on arrival.  This is blind rage, which is always present in society and can be harnessed for all kinds of things even positive ones.

 

But there's no logic there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a cite ?  Where does he get that from ?  I get that he's a psychology professor but he's not the sole opinion on this topic and I would like to hear the rationale behind that one.

He cites plenty of authors in the Human Sciences domain such as Carl Jung, which isn't proper Science in itself, but more thesis-like arguments. You may find it interesting, even though it may be based on interpretations that are not scientific. Doesn't mean they are wrong, doesn't mean they are 100% true.

But I feel that Peterson nails it when he explains the root causes of Mass Killers. He understands them pretty well with the mental state description of what's going through their minds before, during the act and what their goal is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is the 'logic' behind mass shootings seem to me a question that is dead on arrival.  This is blind rage, which is always present in society and can be harnessed for all kinds of things even positive ones.

 

But there's no logic there.

Blind rage or desire to revenge against life in itself? An act of rebellion against God by killing innocence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

He cites plenty of authors in the Human Sciences domain such as Carl Jung, which isn't proper Science in itself, but more thesis-like arguments. You may find it interesting, even though it may be based on interpretations that are not scientific. Doesn't mean they are wrong, doesn't mean they are 100% true.

But I feel that Peterson nails it when he explains the root causes of Mass Killers. He understands them pretty well with the mental state description of what's going through their minds before, during the act and what their goal is.

 

3 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Blind rage or desire to revenge against life in itself? An act of rebellion against God by killing innocence?

Carl Jung ?  What ?  I was surprised that Peterson would cite someone like that.  Ok, so we have some 'interesting' comments.  Are they helpful ?
The more helpful comments may be ones that describe the culture that leads to these things happening, and the technology and policy that enables the even, ie. weapons technology and weapons policy.

I will listen to the Peterson bit (and I'm pretty sure it's a bit because he's more of a YouTube personality than a publishing academic) and I hope to find it as interesting as you.

As for the 'blind rage or desire'  question... really it's not a knowable answer and parsing the thoughts of maniacal killers isn't a worthy activity IMO, unless you are a criminal psychiatrist with professional interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The more helpful comments may be ones that describe the culture that leads to these things happening, and the technology and policy that enables the even, ie. weapons technology and weapons policy.

There is more to it. Society changed, and the number of mass killing such as school shootings have become more common. It's not technology, it's also society and psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

There is more to it. Society changed, and the number of mass killing such as school shootings have become more common. It's not technology, it's also society and psychology.

Yeah it's Technology. The internet has allowed people with Extreme views to find people with common opinions much easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

For the jobs of tomorrow, there will be mass unemployment. There is no other solution when we get there then to get a basic minimum income for everyone.

If you have a great mass of people living on a basic living stipend, their only way to improve their lives will be through theft or getting that stipend increased. Every election will be about politicians offering them a higher stipend for votes, and where does that lead but bankruptcy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Yeah it's Technology. The internet has allowed people with Extreme views to find people with common opinions much easier. 

Hitler happened because of the Internet. Not because there were enormous frustrations among the working class of Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Argus said:

If you have a great mass of people living on a basic living stipend, their only way to improve their lives will be through theft or getting that stipend increased. Every election will be about politicians offering them a higher stipend for votes, and where does that lead but bankruptcy?

There will be a crisis like it happened in the 20th century, which created the Socialist/Communist and Fascist revolutions. Because the working class was so poor at the start of the 20th century, the working class rebelled. It created Fascism and made Socialism very attractive. Germany was conflicted between the two, then they chose Hitler because the USSR was an nightmare.

Edited by QuebecOverCanada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Hitler happened because of the Internet. Not because there were enormous frustrations among the working class of Germany.

GODWIN!!!!

It does seems you just compared Trump to Hilter tho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Boges said:

GODWIN!!!!

It does seems you just compared Trump to Hilter tho. 

Not at all. I'm comparing the extreme-right on the internet to Hitler sympathizers from the 1930s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

There is more to it. Society changed, and the number of mass killing such as school shootings have become more common. It's not technology, it's also society and psychology.

If there are things to be discussed that will help, in terms of culture, then so be it.  But culture change, I"m sure you can see, is the most difficult of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Nobody supported Clinton after Lewinsky. He didn't get one vote. But speaking of Clinton, he was able to reduce the number of mass shootings significantly with his assault weapons ban. The shootings went up exponentially when the Republicans got rid of it. There's your answer.

Wrong. Clinton's approval rating went up after Republicans impeached him. The AWB was a fail, mass shootings did not go up because it was repealed either, most mass shootings don't involve assault rifles anyway, most involve hand guns, which aren't covered by the AWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Wrong. Clinton's approval rating went up after Republicans impeached him. The AWB was a fail, mass shootings did not go up because it was repealed either, most mass shootings don't involve assault rifles anyway, most involve hand guns, which aren't covered by the AWB.

Mass shootings do. You kind of have to separate them here. 

Gore definitely separated himself from Clinton during the 2000 campaign. History has been kind to Clinton, he did a lot of good things. History also hasn't been terrible to Bush 2.0 either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Mass shootings do. You kind of have to separate them here. 

Most mass shootings do not involve weapons that were banned in the AWB, the vast majority of them are committed with handguns, which were not banned. The rise in mass shootings has nothing to do with the AWB no longer being in effect.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Most mass shootings do not involve weapons that were banned in the AWB, the vast majority of them are committed with handguns, which were not banned. The rise in mass shootings has nothing to do with the AWB no longer being in effect.

So I guess this is a battle of anecdotes. The ones that have the biggest casualties most certainly involve people using Military style weapons. 

Which I guess is the point. 3 people get killed if a guy uses a handgun. Dozens get killed if a guy uses an AR-15. Or like with the Vegas shooter, a freakin machine gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of it has to do with the progressive cultural/societal war against white men over the last few decades too.  They've succeeded in their attempt to marginalize them, particularly young men.  As white men, your told that your opinion doesn't matter.  That you have special privilege, despite your circumstances.  You're told literally not to apply for certain jobs and professions. You're essentially told you're everything wrong with society and the world.  And all of this is sanctioned by a government that's suppose to represent you.

Edited by Shady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Boges said:

So I guess this is a battle of anecdotes. The ones that have the biggest casualties most certainly involve people using Military style weapons. 

Which I guess is the point. 3 people get killed if a guy uses a handgun. Dozens get killed if a guy uses an AR-15. Or like with the Vegas shooter, a freakin machine gun!

No it's a battle of stats versus anecdotes, and your anecdotes lose. The ones with the biggest casualties weren't the biggest casualties because the weapons they were using was so dangerous. Spraying the crowd with a bump stock does not maximize deaths. If they had used guns that weren't banned in the AWB and taken their time instead wasting ammo and missing targets just to fire more bullets in rapid succession, those shooters could have killed more people, the AWB would not have saved any lives in the Vegas Shooting, it might have actually upped the death toll if it made the shooter use better weapons in a more efficient way.

The AWB did not ban all the dangerous guns, and plenty that weren't banned are more dangerous than guns that were banned.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No it's a battle of stats versus anecdotes, and your anecdotes lose. The ones with the biggest casualties weren't the biggest casualties because the weapons they were using was so dangerous. Spraying the crowd with a bump stock does not maximize deaths. If they had used guns that weren't banned in the AWB and taken their time instead wasting ammo, those shooters could have killed more people. The AWB did not ban all the dangerous guns, and plenty that weren't banned are more dangerous than guns that were banned.

Well provide your stats. 

On Saturday, 9 people were killed in Dayton even though he was killed within of a minute. He has an Assault Weapon with a 100 round drum.

How about we ban 100 round clips? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well provide your stats. 

On Saturday, 9 people were killed in Dayton even though he was killed within of a minute. He has an Assault Weapon with a 100 round drum.

How about we ban 100 round clips? 

How would banning those clips save any lives? It wouldn't. Shooters reloading and taking their time instead of spraying and praying ain't going to save any lives, it will increase the death toll.
 

Quote


Several types of guns have been used in mass shootings in the United States. A 2014 study of 142 shootings by Dr. James Fox found 88 (62%) were committed with handguns of all types; 68 (48%) with semi-automatic handguns, 20 (14%) with revolvers), 35 (25%) with semi-automatic rifles, and 19 (13%) with shotguns. The study was conducted using the Mother Jones database of mass shootings from 1982–2018.

25% semi-automatic rifles used, which were the main targets of the AWB. You want to ban the guns that get the most publicity, instead of actually addressing the actual problems.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

How would banning those clips save any lives? It wouldn't.

That's probably one of the dumbest things I've read here on this board. If you don't have to reload you can kill more people. 

Quote

25% semi-automatic rifles used, which were the main targets of the AWB.

So provide data in the number of people that were killed in those 25% vs the other 75%. You just quoted from an article without providing a link. 

The most notable ones, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Vegas, El Paso all involved people using Assault weapons.  

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's probably one of the dumbest things I've read here on this board. If you don't have to reload you can kill more people. 

So provide data in the number of people that were killed in those 25% vs the other 75%. 

The most notable ones, Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Vegas, El Paso all involved people using AWs. 

Wrong, if you don't reload, then you are wasting bullets and missing the target due to recoil. You kill less people. The most notable shootings could have had much higher death tools if the shooters knew how to shoot, and didn't think shooting the most bullets the fastest kills the most people, because it doesn't.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Wrong, if you don't reload, then you are wasting bullets and missing the target due to recoil. You kill less people.

That's if you're using an automatic weapon. Which has also been banned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's if you're using an automatic weapon. Which has also been banned. 

That's if you're using a semi-auto with a bump stock, like the Vegas shooter. He minimized the death toll by shooting blindly into the crowd, instead of slowly picking off people one by one with no one noticing there was a shooter for minutes. Firing faster did not result in less deaths there, it saved lives when people realized there was a shooter a whole lot quicker than if the shooter knew what he was doing. You should be thanking the bump stock, not maligning it.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Firing a "machine gun" wildly ain't maximizing no death tolls in mass shootings, just the opposite. The shooter is a helluva lot more important than the tool, and you are banning the tools that they these mass shooters use ineffectively while not banning the tools that they'd be more likely to use effectively, by just being forced to slow down to use those weapons.

The AWB doesn't save lives, if anything, it will result in more deaths, not less.

 

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

That's if you're using a semi-auto with a bump stock, like the Vegas shooter. He minimized the death toll by shooting blindly into the crowd, instead of slowly picking off people one by one with no one noticing there was a shooter for minutes. Firing faster did not result in less deaths there, it saved lives. You should be thanking the bump stock, not maligning it.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Firing a "machine gun" wildly ain't maximizing no death tolls in mass shootings, just the opposite. The shooter is a helluva lot more important than the tool, and you are banning the tools that they these mass shooters use ineffectively while not banning the tolls that they'd more likely to use effectively, you aren't saving any lives by doing so.

But if your methodically shooting people, then the other people have time to run away. You can make the argument it's less efficient, but not that it's less deadly. 

Again, had the Dayton shooter not had an Assault weapon, he'd have killed less people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...