No, I did not mean you, eph.
 
I have no idea WTH you're prattling on about.

bitflipper

 
The real question is: why weren't these things happening 50 years ago? What changed in us? 
 
 

Someone else alluded to the real problem earlier: the media.

The media salivates every time something like this happens. The "news" media is a business and let's face it: dead bodies are good for business. They don't exist to inform us, they exist to enrichen their shareholders. Keeping people glued, breathlessly awaiting the latest non-update to the manufactured crisis du jour boosts ratings. Ratings mean ad revenue.

The media is absolutely complicit in these tragedies. The psychopathic losers who perpetrate them crave fame and noteriety and the media gives it to them by repeating their names over and over. These people felt they were nothing in life, but they know that in death they will be famous. The media turns them into a twisted kind of negative folk-hero by essentially glorifying their accomplishment.

If the media would let these people languish in anonymity by refusing to give them any publicity, their incentive would noonger be there.

And don't forget video games and heavy metal music!
 
*eyeroll*

A terrible thing, to be sure, and whenever this happens, I wonder what could make a person do such a thing.
 
I know there are several Las Vegas residents on this forum. Rain checked in on a previous page, so it's good to know he's okay. For those of you who remember him, Crg is also fine, posting on FB.

One problem is that the debate is still going on between people who think the other side is talking about something completely different than the position they actually hold. Some people are still arguing that one does not require an assault rifle or large capacity magazine to hunt groundhogs. The NRA, which was once primarily a hunter safety and target shooting proponent, moved away from that argument years ago. They are currently championing gun ownership as a method of self defense. Clearly if one has the most paranoid view of a world in which evil people have effectively unlimited access to advanced weaponry and the stamina to besiege a household, then an arms race mentality can justify the citizens' need for automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and fifty caliber sniper rifles. In fact, the only rational scenario this would fit is an attack by the police or the military forces, which the well armed citizen who rejects the legitimacy of his government might envision. Some opponents of gun restrictions do in fact state that the need to be prepared to fight an insurgency is the basis of their principled stand. That argument was not well accepted by most Americans when it was made by the Black Panthers in the 1960's, although it is given a surprising amount of respect when made by contemporary self styled militias. Telling such people that a single gun per household in the hands of a trained adult would be sufficient for self defense is not relevant to them. And it is equally tone deaf to suggest that an effective registration and accounting of weapons would make diversion to illegal activity less likely, since their intended use of their weapons to fight the government is illegal. They argue they are obeying a higher law, and need to keep secret their arsenals in order to avoid disarmament, harassment or attack by the rest of us via our government.
 
Not very many "gun control" proponents actually expect to prohibit personal ownership of all firearms, even if it were possible, anymore than most Americans would expect the government to be able to apprehend and deport all people in the country illegally. As a practical matter, laws restricting firearms ownership will not eliminate firearms anymore than laws against murder will eliminate murder. That is not a strong argument for legalizing murder. The argument that an imminent deadly threat cannot be reliably met by calling the police is irrefutable, and most Americans would not deny their fellow citizens the right to effective self defense, which might include a firearm.
 
But strong arguments can be made that the sense of personal security that comes from gun ownership is largely illusory. I do not walk around my house with my pump action twelve gauge at the ready to repel a home invader who might kick down the door and enter guns blazing, although given enough warning I might be able to find it and menace a burglar. In fact most cases of citizen use of guns against other citizens are either frankly criminal actions, exchanges of fire with or by police or shootings that could most reasonably be expected to prevent loss of property. I am not sure that most of us would be willing to kill a man for taking our television, but in most jurisdictions we would be pretty well protected by the law if we shot an uninvited visitor, even if the visitor is unarmed, and in his drunken stupor mistook our house for his own. The people who have the most to fear from a deadly attack are probably young criminals, who may be in a constant state of war with gang members or police, and these are the most likely citizens to face legal action against their gun ownership and the least likely to be excused for using guns in self defense.
 
My neighbors' duly elected representatives find no problem restricting me to ownership of a maximum of four licensed house cats in a rural county, but they cannot see their way clear to limit my ownership of unlimited numbers of guns, hundred round magazines, or munitions that can kill a man hiding behind his car. They will not allow the sheriff to refuse me the right to carry a hidden weapon, presumably so that I can surprise an attacker with deadly force who might be deterred from attacking if he saw it in a holster outside my jacket. Reasonable people can agree on reasonable restrictions on guns if they think about it in nuanced terms.

bdickens

bitflipper

 
The real question is: why weren't these things happening 50 years ago? What changed in us? 
 
 

Someone else alluded to the real problem earlier: the media.

The media salivates every time something like this happens. The "news" media is a business and let's face it: dead bodies are good for business. They don't exist to inform us, they exist to enrichen their shareholders. Keeping people glued, breathlessly awaiting the latest non-update to the manufactured crisis du jour boosts ratings. Ratings mean ad revenue.

The media is absolutely complicit in these tragedies. The psychopathic losers who perpetrate them crave fame and noteriety and the media gives it to them by repeating their names over and over. These people felt they were nothing in life, but they know that in death they will be famous. The media turns them into a twisted kind of negative folk-hero by essentially glorifying their accomplishment.

If the media would let these people languish in anonymity by refusing to give them any publicity, their incentive would noonger be there.

It absolutely is the notoriety the media gives them. Ever since Columbine they have sensationalized every mass shooter to the point of turning them into anti-heroes. What really boils my pish is Piers Morgan. Before the bodies are even cold he's on Twitter slamming the US and demanding gun control, while the newspaper he edits (Daily Mail Online US edition) is one of the worst offenders in sensationalizing mass killers.

slartabartfast
SMRT werds.

 
That's a rather nice description of many of my thoughts on the issue. Not all but a good hunk (edit: by that I mean I agree with everything you said but of course have many other thoughts on the matter as I am sure you do as well)...
 
And
 
a) I'm trying to be a good boy here and
 
b) my back is a disaster area today
 
So I'm trying not to go into ultra ranty typing mode.
 
Seriously, guys. Many other countries (including your closest neighbor... physically and culturally) have rather effective systems in place to reduce such events. We want to help but it seems America would rather yell itself to death about the issue under the false premise that it is "unsolveable".
 
It is not.

slartabartfast
One problem is that the debate is still going on between people who think the other side is talking about something completely different than the position they actually hold. Some people are still arguing that one does not require an assault rifle or large capacity magazine to hunt groundhogs. The NRA, which was once primarily a hunter safety and target shooting proponent, moved away from that argument years ago. They are currently championing gun ownership as a method of self defense. Clearly if one has the most paranoid view of a world in which evil people have effectively unlimited access to advanced weaponry and the stamina to besiege a household, then an arms race mentality can justify the citizens' need for automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds and fifty caliber sniper rifles. In fact, the only rational scenario this would fit is an attack by the police or the military forces, which the well armed citizen who rejects the legitimacy of his government might envision. Some opponents of gun restrictions do in fact state that the need to be prepared to fight an insurgency is the basis of their principled stand. That argument was not well accepted by most Americans when it was made by the Black Panthers in the 1960's, although it is given a surprising amount of respect when made by contemporary self styled militias. Telling such people that a single gun per household in the hands of a trained adult would be sufficient for self defense is not relevant to them. And it is equally tone deaf to suggest that an effective registration and accounting of weapons would make diversion to illegal activity less likely, since their intended use of their weapons to fight the government is illegal. They argue they are obeying a higher law, and need to keep secret their arsenals in order to avoid disarmament, harassment or attack by the rest of us via our government.
 
Not very many "gun control" proponents actually expect to prohibit personal ownership of all firearms, even if it were possible, anymore than most Americans would expect the government to be able to apprehend and deport all people in the country illegally. As a practical matter, laws restricting firearms ownership will not eliminate firearms anymore than laws against murder will eliminate murder. That is not a strong argument for legalizing murder. The argument that an imminent deadly threat cannot be reliably met by calling the police is irrefutable, and most Americans would not deny their fellow citizens the right to effective self defense, which might include a firearm.
 
But strong arguments can be made that the sense of personal security that comes from gun ownership is largely illusory. I do not walk around my house with my pump action twelve gauge at the ready to repel a home invader who might kick down the door and enter guns blazing, although given enough warning I might be able to find it and menace a burglar. In fact most cases of citizen use of guns against other citizens are either frankly criminal actions, exchanges of fire with or by police or shootings that could most reasonably be expected to prevent loss of property. I am not sure that most of us would be willing to kill a man for taking our television, but in most jurisdictions we would be pretty well protected by the law if we shot an uninvited visitor, even if the visitor is unarmed, and in his drunken stupor mistook our house for his own. The people who have the most to fear from a deadly attack are probably young criminals, who may be in a constant state of war with gang members or police, and these are the most likely citizens to face legal action against their gun ownership and the least likely to be excused for using guns in self defense.
 
My neighbors' duly elected representatives find no problem restricting me to ownership of a maximum of four licensed house cats in a rural county, but they cannot see their way clear to limit my ownership of unlimited numbers of guns, hundred round magazines, or munitions that can kill a man hiding behind his car. They will not allow the sheriff to refuse me the right to carry a hidden weapon, presumably so that I can surprise an attacker with deadly force who might be deterred from attacking if he saw it in a holster outside my jacket. Reasonable people can agree on reasonable restrictions on guns if they think about it in nuanced terms.

This is what I said, but you said it better.

lol
 
That is not what you said... like at all.
 
I mean I guess if you are on acid or something what you were typing jibes with what slarta posted but in realspace it was just weird.
 
NTTIAWWT... sort of

bdickens

bitflipper

 
The real question is: why weren't these things happening 50 years ago? What changed in us? 
 
 

Someone else alluded to the real problem earlier: the media.

The media salivates every time something like this happens. The "news" media is a business and let's face it: dead bodies are good for business. They don't exist to inform us, they exist to enrichen their shareholders. Keeping people glued, breathlessly awaiting the latest non-update to the manufactured crisis du jour boosts ratings. Ratings mean ad revenue.

The media is absolutely complicit in these tragedies. The psychopathic losers who perpetrate them crave fame and noteriety and the media gives it to them by repeating their names over and over. These people felt they were nothing in life, but they know that in death they will be famous. The media turns them into a twisted kind of negative folk-hero by essentially glorifying their accomplishment.

If the media would let these people languish in anonymity by refusing to give them any publicity, their incentive would noonger be there.

+1
 
A couple of weeks ago somebody placed a NAZI inspired sticker in a school bathroom in my GEO area of the US  .
The Media in the part of the USA where I live went crazy over this ...
They are interviewing the janitor who had to scrape the sticker off .I'm like  WTF?...in my day somebody would just peel the sticker off & be done with it Since they ran with the story in the media now some little 2 bit a$$hole
has garnered some pay off in validation and street cred even if it is only anonymously .
Then the media is talking about grief counseling and what the possible long term damage and side effects that may have happened as a result of the exposure the sticker may have had on students ...
Once again what a crock ..a student had seen the sticker and notified a school official in a timely fashion .At best a handful of people may have seen the sticker before an action was taken on the part of the school removing the sticker ..
Then the story starts talking about increasing Police Patrols and protection around the school ...
Of course there is the obligatory interview with a concerned parent who's child had not even seen the sticker , but hey does that even really matter ?
NO,  because the parent is conveying genuine fear and concern for the life and safety of her child . In addition to that the media amps up the fears and concerns VIA the story angle to include the students and community in the schools general area ..
What is my point ? My point is this ...
In addition to what has been said here about the news media in this thread , the news media is an insidious tool and instigator of fear and emotional distress directed to inflict its power on the masses ..
 
The news media may pretend  to report the news when in fact it sets itself up to play both sides of the game equally.
One of it's main tactics is to feed and fan the flames of emotional distress all the players may have in the story. Then they put it out to the court of public opinion ...after a little time has followed and the story has cooled down, then the media pretends to want to get to the bottom of what constituted the all the main players actions in regards to their feelings and the parts and roles they may have played as individuals in the story   
 
It is my humble opinion that the News Media will not stop until it has reached it's lofty goal .
I'm not in a position to know exactly what The News Medias end game goal may be , but I can surmise and predict that judging by my observations one of the News Medias goals may include creating and fanning the flames of a world wide case of PTSD for all the citizens of the World ...
How do I know this ? I have a very strong intellect & I have very strong powers of discernment ...
I have tasted some of the low hanging fruit the media has dished up and it ain't Good Ole American Apple Pie .
 
Kenny