maybe, but they also had real shit to deal with that distracted from a lot of that crap.Originally Posted by JHC
Idle hands, and all that...
maybe, but they also had real shit to deal with that distracted from a lot of that crap.
Idle hands, and all that...
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
that's the definition that I think gets overplayed, perhaps for these reasons.
As a regular person, or victim in waiting, I don't care about those kinds of things. I don't care about "spociopath" vs "psychopath" in terms of responsible or not.
Maybe that's why the label of "crazy" bothers some when applied to someone they just think of as "evil" in that they are concerned it's a reason not to hold them accountable.
I look at both of your examples (without, frankly, being even remotely familiar with either situation) and just think "whatever we call it, there's probably a lot of red flags that got missed.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
If you want to play the correlation game, look at the stunning increase in AR-15s in the general public:For whatever reason, we've seen a stunning increase in random mass murder over the last 30 years. Something has changed.
Want to go there?
Anyway, I've read the pro meta-analyses on predicting violence through standard psychological tests or psychiatric interviews and the consensus is that there is really nothing there for predicting. Lots of after the fact - why, of course, we should have seen it. As HCM points out - grievance seems the provoking cause outside of a few truly diagnosable cases. Predictors are (for what they are worth now):
1. Aggressive act history
2. Giving off warnings
3. Sudden purchases of firearms without a history of past usage or interest. This is tricky though. Lots of folks do that when they feel they need one and get the bug. This could be after the fact analysis.
The other thing I mentioned previously is that some thing a form of suicide is related. Want to die. Want your death to give a message of grievance which may change society - a form of reciprocal altruism, it's called. Vicarious reinforcement of fantasizing the outcome of your action. You made folks suffer, they may change the way they act that caused you to act this way, your pleasure in revenge, wanting to die a 'warriors death - not as some isolated loser'.
All of this may be BS but the common issues thrown out like drugs, autism, video games - don't hold up. They are sometimes promoted by progun folks to avoid the issue of access to guns.
The contagion effect of seeing incidents like this, does seem to be real as we see shooters studying past events. The criminologists and psychologists think the coverage provides planning hints AND the vicarious reinforcement I mentioned. Seeing all the folks cry make us feel sympathy and grief. I still recall tears to my eyes after Aurora, seeing an officer lead a little boy in a Batman costume away from the scene. That one got to me. However, the shooter may be reinforced by seeing the horror as that is what the shooter wants to inflict because of their motivation.
Who really knows -this is what I gather from the pro literature and conferences I went to. Expect more local AWBs bans. I see the shooter had a Keltec SU2000, it seems along with the AR and M&P handgun.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
Mass shootings were absolutely as common 50 years ago as they are now. 50 years ago was 1973. See: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....=1#post1356534
Perception has changed far more than reality. We had a shooting on campus at my alma mater when I was there. Six victims. And it was on the front page of the BBC's world service. I don't deny the tragedy of it, and it certainly changed the lives of more than just those 6 immediate victims. But the beeb's world service typically has room on the front page for about a dozen stories. And a shooting in a place most people couldn't find on a map (and typically couldn't give a shit about if they did...) was apparently one of the dozen most globally significant events to happen that day.
Like I said before, you can tell a million different stories based entirely on where (and when) you choose to point the camera.
Didn't read but the "what an ar-15 does to the human body" is a common point in the newer arguments against ar-15s. It's intended to be an emotional trigger; presumably one that works better for people already predisposed to the conclusion. But that's one of the increasingly more common arguments. Maybe if you have to see the damage you'll feel guilty.I did notice that the WaPo has published more than one article about the AR-15 and mass shootings in the last few days. I haven't read any of them yet because I know I'll disagree with most of it, but it's there if anyone wants to read it. I'll probably read it in the next few days.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...main_p001_f004
Same tactic the church crowd uses for abortion. AFAIK it's more keeping the choir faithful than persuading converts.
That's a Stussy sticker on the KelTec mag.
The fact that red flags are warning signs existed - whether missed or not, has no bearing on whether the person is “crazy.” Both “crazy” and sane people consciously and unconsciously exhibit warning signs / behaviors before critical incidents, the same is true of them having grievances, whether real, or imagined.
Being “grievance collectors” is the one common denominator among all these mass attack suspects.
FYI for anyone else who has no clue what this is.
"...an American privately held fashion house founded in the early 1980s by Shawn Stussy. It benefited from the surfwear trend originating in Orange County, California, but was later adopted by the skateboard and hip hop scenes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%BCssy
It was a common brand of clothing some of her generation may have worn in school if they were skaters, along with brands like billabong and Vans.
The Stussy 'S' was a common type of Kilroy drawn in yearbooks and notebooks around the 90s and early 2000s.
Good Lord, that bodycam video is heartbreaking. At 5:19, the officers are charging down the hall towards the sound of gunfire, and they pass something on the floor that's been pixelated, but appears to be wearing pink. Breaks my heart all over again.
God bless those officers, and all like them, including those of you on this forum, who run to the sound of gunfire to stop monsters like this piece of shit.
Ordinary guy
but there seems to be a resistance to calling people crazy because there's a presumption that they won't be held accountable in some way, which (at least from the outside looking int) seems to result in a fair amount of missed opportunities.
ETA: this is getting pretty far down a rabbit hole of minutiae.
The original, broader, point is that IMO there are some people that want to use "crazy" as an cause and some that want to use "evil", and get hung up (much like this back and forth) on definitions of both, when the general public just want to be safe. Both seem to me to be very dismissive and not really productive.
Last edited by rob_s; 03-28-2023 at 10:51 AM.
Does the above offend? If you have paid to be here, you can click here to put it in context.
Reply With Quote