I'm getting friggin' irritated

@trying2learn,

trying2learn wrote:

Let me start by writing I don't care who you are and I don't like you. Can you please write in simple English? I don't understand what you are saying. I am not the only one who feels this way. I don't mean to be cruel, it is how I and others feel.

Nicely illustrating the problem one has if they should refuse to go with the expected simplistic soundbite response.

I blame the failed education system.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Your first sentence I don't understand. What you wrote next I do and if that is what you think, okay.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

You can't convict someone until they do something and you can rarely detain anybody for the same reason. It remains circular until a criminal act is in progress.

This is the best answer. It's succinct and it goes right to the point.

One of the problems with these topics is that inevitabley, sooner or later, and usually sooner rather than later, some yahoo is going to claim that if everyone went around with a gun in their pocket, this wouldn't happen. Then they're off and running, and the same arguments get "hashed" and rehashed.

1 Reply

@Mame,

or me - pantless day (but I am wearing panties)

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I heard a psychologist speaking of this - he said although many people would fit such a profile of potentially being a mass murder, very few actually are dangerous and there is really know way to know for sure who is capable of doing this - even showing the oddball signs.

Also, if you were to report to police these signs - what could they do? In the case of this individual, he never even had a criminal record...even if reported that his behavor is odd showing signs, if he wasn't doing anything illegal, what could the police do?

I even heard of some suggesting having mental institutions again - what are your thoughts on this? There are plenty of mentally ill people at various abilities walking the streets. Many are homeless because they can't cope in normal every day jobs and normal every day life. I wouldn't suggest they were like prior - but a "safe" place for people both mentally ill and for those that aren't...

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The weapon of choice for mass murder in the last ten years has been overwhelmingly the suicide bomb, the biggest reasons this is less prevalent in America is not due to superior "bomb control" but due to cultural differences in how death and suicide is viewed and how few people are willing to "martyr themselves" in our culture.

The suicide bomb is different in that it isn't done by a single person. Rather it is a large group with resources that only require a willing bomber to complete the package.

A single person with questionable mental health is as likely to blow himself up prior to any suicide bombing or will get caught attempting to acquire the materials to make said bomb. That in no way means we couldn't see persons doing that in the US but it is much more difficult than purchasing weapons legally where no reporting to authorities occurs.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

no wonder you're getting groped on the T... Razz

0 Replies

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

As for recognizing these people before they committ heineous acts--that is the proplem--there are some signs that are pretty good. Animal cruelty for one is a pretty good indication of a severe psychosis, but some signs are mere quirks that make individuals individuals and not mass murderers. Until such time that society enforces conformance and/or continuous monitoring what happened last Thursday is going to sporatically happen.

I disagree with the notion that we should have been able to spot this. The extreme rarity of such people mean that this is just going to mean a lot of false positives. This is not unlike the advocacy for public vigilance to prevent terrorism that cropped up after 911, well meaning but largely pointless.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

You make an attempt to separate "sickness of an individual" from "sickness of a society". But is there not an argument that a society which statistically condones gun ownership and and congregates to watch semi-violent commercial fanatasy at midnight (with or without babes in arms) may produce sociopathic behavior "true to form"? Don't get me wrong. I am not particularly supporting that particular argument...I am merely pointing out that your attempt at separation may be unfounded.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

That we grant these killers fame and notoriety is probably the single biggest thing we change. Norway's reaction was healthier. Not trying to reflexively let the killer change them, trying to keep the killer on the ground, not a martyr and not an obsession. A healthy self-awareness of the impact of their reaction is what they have an

If I had to advocate one single thing here it would be that the media avoid naming the killer and didn't pore over his every pore (I will already never be able to forget this face, having seen it and read it dissected so) trying to outdo themselves for the rubbernecking society. Denying these killers their fame and notoriety will do more to reduce these cases than gun control will.

I brought this up too... what I was struggling with is how possible do you think it is, especially in this internet age? Someone would get ahold of his name, someone would get ahold of a photo, and people would seek it out.

The exposure might be significantly reduced, though.

And the practice of keeping the name of alleged rape victims secret has worked fairly well, even in high-profile cases. (I don't remember now if Nafissatou Diallo, the woman who accused DSK of rape, was "outed" before she started to speak publicly. A quick Google search didn't yield a definitive answer.)

I agree that Norway struck a good balance, somehow. You knew his name and saw his photo but there didn't seem to be as much attention paid.

3 Replies

@sozobe,

I think there should be a media agreement about how such events are reported. Chief thing being not naming and focusing on perp.

I agree that stuff would likely appear on the net, but it should be contained as much as reasonably possible.

Be very hard to achieve....

0 Replies

Code:

American Post-Tragedy To Do List:



-grieve lives lost

-pick a side

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

we let these things become cultural events is something that poses a much greater risk

I've been thinking about this lately, even before the theater shootings.....

I was half listening to the local news the other day when the announcer said something like "A dramatic tape of a daylight kidnapping attempt on a downtown street" so I looked up and say a woman reporter standing on a local street giving a report. They showed the video and warned everyone to keep an eye on their child and blahblahblah". There was no mention that this had taken place almost all the way across the country form me, in Philadelphia.

And then this shooting with it's wall to wall coverage.

I've found myself wondering is media control would go further than gun control. I'm not talking about censoring what they can say, but limiting the amount of time they're allowed to say it in. Maybe if they only had 5 hours a day to fill they'd consider reporting what it relevant instead of gossiping and fear mongering.

I'm neither pro gun or anti gun. I think making guns illegal will be as effective in reducing gun crime as the war on drugs has had in reducing drug use

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I brought this up too... what I was struggling with is how possible do you think it is, especially in this internet age? Someone would get ahold of his name, someone would get ahold of a photo, and people would seek it out.

Honestly the fundamental thing I am advocating is really nothing, if I HAD to advocate that we try to change society because of those events I would advocate that we change the reaction to it.

However I don't think it is easy to do, nor do I think it is really worth it (this energy is better spent trying to prevent deaths from lightning, which is a problem at a greater scale and with easier solutions).

If I had a single point to this all it would be: react less. Same with terrorism and other exotic violence. React less, put it into proportion with non-exotic violence and death. Proportionality is the first victim when sensationalism happens.

We are willing to allow orders and orders of magnitude more death happen just because it isn't as sexy, it is not reasonable to try only to eliminate these exotic outliers and it would make more sense to try to reduce the quotidian homicide (the thousands of other people murdered this year in much more predictable and preventable ways are getting short shrift because they didn't have a death that generated as much of our curiosity).

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Good points; the actions of crazies cannot be predicted or prevented.

Gun laws has nothing to do with the said killings in Colorado.

It's all the "natural" scheme of human behavior; whether it's wars or what we euphemistically call murder, they have happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.

The media droned on and on about this incident, and over-killed it as something unique in this world. How about Syria, or even Iraq? Local news is dreadful.

0 Replies

@boomerang,

I don't think it should be legislated, and the problem really is that the society is curious. The media is largely driven by the desire to gain eyeballs at any cost.

I don't see society stopping to provide the eyeballs so the market is gonna be there and gonna be huge. However I do think that journalism should pursue such standards and greater awareness of their societal impact.

Thing is, there are outlets that maintain such higher standards. I barely see any of this sensationalism (I see it mostly second-hand) because I avoid sensationalist, popularity driven journalism.

So the more people that do the same, the better. But most people will not, and thusly most of the media will pander to the lowest common denominator for the eyeballs if they have the choice, and because we need a free press they must have the choice.

It's up to the society if they want to give their eyeballs to an outfit like The NYTimes or a shitbucket like CNN. I advocate higher standards in journalism, but it too is a small part of the problem and largely symptomatic. The root of the problem is that we are fundamentally curious about these things and that attention is a commodity that is highly sought. The rest are symptoms, and I advocate that we treat the symptoms as we can, but with the realization of the proportional benefits we can have (that is, with a free press there is just some degree of shitty journalism we will always have with us).

Still, when journalists steps over the line it's good to call them on it when we can. This last week in Australia it happened with Channel 7, they had a huge backlash at their overaggressive selling of misery (see: https://www.facebook.com/JusticeForLinda and http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/seven-sorry-after-quadbike-mothers-facebook-criticism-removed-20120723-22j2r.html).

And when you notice your news source panders for views (easiest signal is fluff stories that have no real import) consider ditching it (hard to do if you want local tv news, there is little to no good journalism on tv).

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Thank you, Osso, for posting that link. I've been off-line and just now saw boomer's request. Yes,that is the post I was referrig to.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I think your argument has merit whether, in fact, you support it or just throw it out for the sake of argument.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Our society is largely made up of individuals who don't know who they are and are thus insecure, and who have been for decades filled with fear by those who are trying to manipulate them.

Your hope for a reasonable rational response can not be filled.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The suicide bomb is different in that it isn't done by a single person. Rather it is a large group with resources that only require a willing bomber to complete the package.

That is typical but hardly the requirement. Not sure if you are aware but this individual (without "a large group with resources") built bombs that would likely have succeeded in killing people if someone had opened the door (and a neighbor of his who called police about the blaring music he had timed in it almost did). Without guns readily available he still would have been able to make his bombs and would likely have managed to kill someone with a bomb if it were his primary attack plan.

Look I completely agree with you about the tactical and strategic differences between bombs and guns. My point is just that the majority of mass murder is committed currently with bombs, indicating a viable alternative to guns. This particular nut made bombs, by himself, without a big team of people.

And the strategy and tactical differences are completely negligible in comparison to the real fundamental limiting factor: people willing to throw their life away. That will always be the fundamentally limiting factor, not our security or the available tools. The number of people willing to do that is the biggest factor by far and while I do think it's worth trying to constrict the tools available for them to do so I think it's important to realize that this is to treat the symptom (still a valid medical pursuit, of course) but that it is not a magic cure for the disease.

Quote:

A single person with questionable mental health is as likely to blow himself up prior to any suicide bombing or will get caught attempting to acquire the materials to make said bomb. That in no way means we couldn't see persons doing that in the US but it is much more difficult than purchasing weapons legally where no reporting to authorities occurs.

I agree that bombs are more difficult weapons to use. They are also much more dangerous when used effectively and hard to prevent the building of and will always be a viable weapon for mass murder. It's not as accessible as a gun, similar to how loose tabacco is not as accessible (I am using this term not in the meaning of how easy it is to access but how accessible the functionality is) as rolled tabacco and banning rolled filter cigarettes would reduce smokers by some degree, even if many others would simply switch to loose tabacco.

These attrition points are worthwhile for society to pursue, as long as society understands the proportionality of their attempts and does not sink undue cost into the attempt at the incremental benefits they stand to reap.

2 Replies

I'm getting friggin' irritated

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know