# Parkland school shooter



## Crungy (Oct 13, 2022)

And is not getting the death penalty. I'm genuinely shocked they gave him life with no parole.









Parkland school shooter avoids the death penalty after jury recommends life in prison | CNN


The Parkland school shooter has avoided the death penalty after a jury recommended he be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the February 2018 massacre at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School -- a move that left some of the victims' loved ones disappointed...




www.cnn.com


----------



## ChrispyFinch (Oct 13, 2022)

Fuck him and Fuck his defense attorneys. 
A kid with a very troubled past, kills a bunch of people and gets to live? on my dime? 
Fuck this system, Fuck guns, and Fuck his defense attorneys and the Jury.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 13, 2022)

I'm really just hoping someone kills this kid in his cell the first week he's in there. One watch of his interrogation and I was begging to be the executioner.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 13, 2022)

Regardless of how heinous the criminal offense is, the death penalty is wrong. Besides it costs more to keep someone alive on death row for 20 years than it costs to keep them in regular maximum security for life.

That said, my personal political and moral feelings aside, if there is a poster child for getting the death penalty this guy is it and I don't understand the reasoning behind the penalty verdict compared to others who do get the death penalty.


----------



## sleewell (Oct 13, 2022)

he should not be alive. tax payer dollars to keep him in a cell for 60-70 years is a huge waste of money. give him a good slug of fentanyl and call it a day.


----------



## Crungy (Oct 13, 2022)

It's nuts... I really don't understand how state with the death penalty they're just going to let him rot for potentially 50 years. So fucking dumb.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 13, 2022)

I'm kind of surprised and kind of not surprised at the same time, IDK. The death penalty is, IMO, losing popular traction.

If you look at the deadliest school shootings (over 4 deaths), the vast majority of the perpetrators either shoot themselves or are shot by the cops. Not a single one has ever received the death penalty since 1992, and there have been a lot...


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 13, 2022)

I'm typically against death penalty, I believe for absolute acts of anti humanity, as mass shootings, fucking kill em dead.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 13, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> I'm typically against death penalty, I believe for absolute acts of anti humanity, as mass shootings, fucking kill em dead.


I'm kind of the other way. I'm don't see any philosophical issue with the death penalty. In a world in which verdicts would be 100% accurate, anyone getting life without parole ought to just bite it. I mean, what quality of life will that person have and what function could they possibly serve to anyone else outside of prison.
However, if you dive into the statistics, approximately one in eight people convicted _and _sentenced to die ends up being exonerated, and there likely are just as many who should have been exonerated, but evidence was too late or the people were too poor for anyone to get their exonerating evidence to see daylight.

So, if we consider the likelihood that a quarter of the people our government intends to kill are innocent of the crime, I say that I don't want our government killing anybody.

In this sort of case, where there is essentially no doubt at all that Cruz is guilty - he pled guilty, his defense for not getting the death penalty was that his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend made him do it, he had gloated publicly about having had done it, etc., I'd have no qualms. It's not like there is any possibility that some piece of evidence will be discovered 30 years from now that someone else did the shooting.

But, honestly, in the USA, the way a person gets the death penalty is not a function of how certain it is that they committed an absolutely terrible crime, it's how poor they are, how black they are, and how badly their lawyer wants to fuck them over.

And the methods they have for execution are silly. Hanging, electrocution, lethal gas... not sure how those manage to make it past the cruel and unusual ban in 2022. If we want to slaughter and animal for meat, we shoot it in the head or clobber it with a hammer. Those methods are more humane than electrocution or hanging. I think I had mentioned in another thread, that, if we wanted to be serious about executions, we ought to have a guillotine. Seriously. How many of these executions here in the USA end up botched because the electric current was too low or the convict ended up being too tolerant of the lethal injection drugs or the drugs lost too much potency whilst being stored awaiting lengthy appeals or the rope for the noose was too long or too short or etc. etc.? How many times has the guillotine been used throughout history and how many of those times did it fail. I think probably never. Ever heard of Doyle Lee Hamm? They tried to lethally inject him for 2 and a half hours, and finally gave up. He died three years later from complications of the botched execution. Yes, you read that right, the execution took three years to kill him. How is that at all humane?! A guillotine and it would have been done and over with in 30 seconds. Schwomp - dead.


----------



## Crungy (Oct 13, 2022)

Hangings are still legal?! What in the absolute fuck


----------



## bostjan (Oct 13, 2022)

There 


Crungy said:


> Hangings are still legal?! What in the absolute fuck


are a couple of states where it is still on the books. Many sources online say it was declared illegal in the USA, but that is patently untrue. Bill Bailey was executed by hanging in 1996. I don't think there has been anyone since, but it will likely happen again somewhere if lethal injection is abolished.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 13, 2022)

I think there has been a resurgence in states using hanging and firing squad after all the moratoriums and shortages of drugs for lethal injection.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 13, 2022)

I'm absolutely grossed out by the whole situation. As someone who's iffy on the death penalty, I can say with confidence this was a place it needed to be used. Personally, it all comes down to the POV of the parents. Just the simple fact that the killer of their child or loved one gets to live out the rest of his life, regardless of how it's lived, is wrong on so many levels. 

Hell in this case, let's bring back public beatings. This braindead POS does not deserve anything less.


----------



## vilk (Oct 13, 2022)

There should be like a "spree killer caught in the act" rule which bypasses death row and most of the mandatory appeals.


----------



## odibrom (Oct 13, 2022)

Death penalty and gun ownership are on the same level... One kind of justifies the existence of the other... which one came first, the Egg or the Chicken?

We, as a species, need to let go of the "an eye for an eye" sentiment, that's one of the lessons Christ tried to teach and I'm not religious / believer whatsoever... just saying... and this lesson is as valid for the mob justice as for the killer spree feelings, I wish not to have in any of these...

I teach my kids that the wrongs some one else did or does do not justify the wrongs we did or may do. If we succeed, we can bring others with us, if we don't, we're the only ones to blame... success here is not only within the wealth / capital perspective... many times is just keeping the head afloat and not harming anyone in our path...

... For you guys to get a relation of why I'm saying this, my country has very strict gun / weapons regulations for civil folks, we have no death nor life sentences, and the top is 25 years. We do have some gun violence here and there as every country does, but it does not hit the news, it's not a problem as big as is in USA, about 5% or less of what you have there...


----------



## StevenC (Oct 13, 2022)

Of all the things to complain about takes being spent on.


----------



## narad (Oct 13, 2022)

I doubt many of the jury felt he was somehow undeserving of death, just many are moving past the idea that the government should be ending lives. Personally I wouldn't mind in this specific case if he was broken on the wheel, but from a societal pov it's better to just take away the death penalty altogether. I think it just moves us forward as a civilization (and of course prevents the abuse of the death penalty, and the risk of killing innocents).


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 13, 2022)

narad said:


> I doubt many of the jury felt he was somehow undeserving of death, just many are moving past the idea that the government should be ending lives. Personally I wouldn't mind in this specific case if he was broken on the wheel, but from a societal pov it's better to just take away the death penalty altogether. I think it just moves us forward as a civilization (and of course prevents the abuse of the death penalty, and the risk of killing innocents).


I'm all for this notion, the idea of moving on from it feels like civilization evolving a bit. But my main issue is that something harsher than just prison needs to replace it. IMO prison time is not enough for scum like this, and that's my main issue with the whole ordeal. It needs to be death or at the least comparable to death.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 13, 2022)

Justice shouldn't be about revenge, but don't worry, prison in this country is fucking terrifying.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 13, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Justice shouldn't be about revenge


Came here to say this, but you said it better. Revenge doesn't solve anything.


----------



## vilk (Oct 14, 2022)

TedEH said:


> Came here to say this, but you said it better. Revenge doesn't solve anything.


*not replying specifically to you but to the notion in general:

For me it isn't about revenge, rather efficiency... or something like that. I've got no skin in the game here. I'm not "angry" at the guy per se. But is there really a realistic chance of rehabilitating a dude who did a spree killing on an elementary school? Even if there theoretically were, is it worth the effort to spend it on this scumbag? In my personal opinion, no. That's why I think it's alright to euthanize him. Again, let's not forget that I'm talking about spree killers caught in the act, as per my previous comment.


----------



## narad (Oct 14, 2022)

vilk said:


> *not replying specifically to you but to the notion in general:
> 
> For me it isn't about revenge, rather efficiency... or something like that. I've got no skin in the game here. I'm not "angry" at the guy per se. But is there really a realistic chance of rehabilitating a dude who did a spree killing on an elementary school? Even if there theoretically were, is it worth the effort to spend it on this scumbag? In my personal opinion, no. That's why I think it's alright to euthanize him. Again, let's not forget that I'm talking about spree killers caught in the act, as per my previous comment.



I don't think there's any desire to rehabilitate him. He's done. But many other reasons aside, I still think it's better to spare his life to give him the opportunity to reflect on the things he's done, and to understand his life and his actions in the broader scope of his life that really only comes with being alive longer.


----------



## vilk (Oct 14, 2022)

narad said:


> I don't think there's any desire to rehabilitate him. He's done. But many other reasons aside, I still think it's better to spare his life to give him the opportunity to reflect on the things he's done, and to understand his life and his actions in the broader scope of his life that really only comes with being alive longer.


Why?

I mean, in a weird way, that almost seems more revenge-ish. _Make this monster learn to understand the meaning of his actions and then live with the regret within the penal system until he dies of natural causes, as a punishment._

If it's no longer about rehabilitation, just cut the sucker out of this mortal coil.


----------



## Glades (Oct 14, 2022)

I really pray that the families of the victims can eventually find peace. In their statements yesterday there was a lot of hate and vitriol towards Cruz (as you would expect for the killer of your child), and their hearts seem full of a desire for revenge. I pray they can find peace in the Lord and rid their hearts of the poison that is hate, or they themselves have died with their children that Valentine's day in 2018.


----------



## sleewell (Oct 14, 2022)

I'd much rather die than spend the rest of my life locked in a closet sized box. You'd think he would have to be kept in isolation bc any roommate would probably kill him so life alone in box for decades sounds like a recipe to lose your mind and sounds more like torture imo. He killed a bunch of people, he should be prepared for the same.

Why do they have such a hard time killing people? So many people od every day, just give them fentanyl or carfentanyl. Cheap, readily available, and they just drift off. Seems like they want to try all these different combos of drugs that don't really work as well as something we already know does the job.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 14, 2022)

I don't think death penality in this case is revenge. It's cutting a dead branch. He should have his brain donated after intense research on his mentality, they can dissect it and hopefully learn a lot from it. 

I know a lot of my feelings of "kill him now" are knee jerk reactions to hearing about children's deaths, as I'm a father(not saying non father's wouldn't feel this way), but to me and many others, jail and incarceration is about rehabilitation, not punishment. The issue is here is that don't think he can be rehabilitated and I don't believe he should ever be allowed to see humanity again. I believe it's way more humane and reasonable to end his life and study his remains, versus keeping him alive in a cell to rot. 

I don't know, I still have a lot to learn in life and maybe I won't feel this way in a few years and we spare a life, who knows.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Oct 14, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> I believe it's way more humane and reasonable to end his life and study his remains, versus keeping him alive in a cell to rot.



From my point of view there's still a lot of meaningful work around where guys like him can pay back to mankind. Example: countless countries are still full of hundreds of thousands of landmines from various wars posing a threat to civilians.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

Personally, I think revenge is the wrong word, and I feel as if it's being put into our mouths without it actually being said. 

There's a massive difference between revenge and punishment. I'm talking about punishment here, which is exactly what this topic is about.... this dude's punishment. Personally, I think it should be harsher. I don't see that as revenge in such a heinous case.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> Personally, I think revenge is the wrong word, and I feel as if it's being put into our mouths without it actually being said.
> 
> There's a massive difference between revenge and punishment. I'm talking about punishment here, which is exactly what this topic is about.... this dude's punishment. Personally, I think it should be harsher. I don't see that as revenge in such a heinous case.



It's literally the definition of revenge. 

It's okay to be uncomfortable with that.


----------



## vilk (Oct 14, 2022)

For me, I'm not feeling a need for punishment any more than I am revenge. It's putting down the rabid dog, so to speak. Just business to be taken care of. In a way, it's the humane thing to do.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 14, 2022)

I can distinguish between the death argument and the revenge argument - my only intended contribution is to be aware of the motivation for the kind of punishments we're pushing for.

I won't deny that there are arguments to be made about death as a suitable response to certain crimes - but it can be true at the same time that a lot of public response to these kinds of events are emotionally driven. "I want the worst possible punishment" is cathartic but not much more than that, and in some people's model of the world, death is that worst punishment - but that's a revenge motive, not a public safety motive.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's literally the definition of revenge.
> 
> It's okay to be uncomfortable with that.


Revenge is personal and private justice. Punishment is calculated and authorized by officials/the state. One is unhinged, the other is calculated. 

It's okay to be uncomfortable with that.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 14, 2022)

Those are just arbitrary personal definitions, and not what those words necessarily mean outside of your own context. Revenge can be calculated, and punishment can be unhinged. Revenge can be the motivator for punishment - which was the point being made. "He should be punished more harshly" is often a very emotionally charged statement, exactly because it's purpose is, at least in part, revenge.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

TedEH said:


> Those are just arbitrary personal definitions, and not what those words necessarily mean outside of your own context. Revenge can be calculated, and punishment can be unhinged. Revenge can be the motivator for punishment - which was the point being made. "He should be punished more harshly" is often a very emotionally charged statement, exactly because it's purpose is, at least in part, revenge.


I understand the line of thinking, and I agree there is a fine line. My issue with saying revenge is that it feels like downplaying the issue here. It feels disingenuous to these parents and to those involved in this case. That's all my point is.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 14, 2022)

I don't understand what's disingenuous about it. Acknowledging the emotional strings in the situation is healthy and honest. At no point has anyone suggested that it's wrong or unexpected to be driven by that motivation - but when you're talking about intentionally killing or inflicting some kind of suffering on a person, IMO you _have to_ acknowledge/confront your motivations.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 14, 2022)

I think this whole thread is as I said before a mixture of confusion about why this crime only deserves the penultimate punishment and not the "harshest" we can give ...and that is understandable....if the death penalty is legal then why not used in THIS case of all cases? But the death penalty is NOT a deterrent, and it IS revenge. It may feel like that's what the criminal deserves and I can't disagree but we are lesser of a society if we choose that we will kill someone in the name of society. He is no longer a threat to society. He's locked up and removed. I could care less if he gets rehabilitated or finds Jesus or Allah, society did its part and if we are going to argue that the crime is so heinous it deserves something more then why not...hmmmm say ....medieval torture....even painless medieval torture? Because that reflects on who we are as a society.

This may sound cold and heartless but I assure you it is not...while the families and friends of victims may want a certain form of justice, they don't have the right to drag my morality through the mud to get there. Or that of anyone else who sees that killing a human being (even a worthless one) is wrong. Full stop


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

To each their own, I guess.


----------



## coreysMonster (Oct 14, 2022)

I understand both the parents and people who (rightfully) think that Cruz deserves death. I also think it's valid for the jurors to not want to have the death of another human on their hands.

Dahmer got life in prison and was out in two years. In a body bag. Life in prison is a long time for an accident to happen, just saying, and Cruz isn't exactly the physically intimidating type.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> Revenge is personal and private justice. Punishment is calculated and authorized by officials/the state. One is unhinged, the other is calculated.



The state has a monopoly on violence, but that in itself doesn't make it somehow more ethically/morally/logically valid when it "calculates" to use it. The state's monopoly on violence is the sole justification for the state's monopoly on violence, and we can argue social contract and "consent of the governed" all day but I think that basic fact is important to recognize in questions like this.

I'm personally a lot more comfortable with "personal and private justice" than I am with state sanctioned killings. I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, but if a slain child's parent killed this guy, that'd be okay with me. I'm not saying we should sanction or even encourage that for the same reasons I oppose the death penalty, just that I'm personally comfortable with it in a way I can never be with state violence.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> The state has a monopoly on violence, but that in itself doesn't make it somehow more ethically/morally/logically valid when it "calculates" to use it. The state's monopoly on violence is the sole justification for the state's monopoly on violence, and we can argue social contract and "consent of the governed" all day but I think that basic fact is important to recognize in questions like this.
> 
> I'm personally a lot more comfortable with "personal and private justice" than I am with state sanctioned killings. I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle, but if a slain child's parent killed this guy, that'd be okay with me. I'm not saying we should sanction or even encourage that for the same reasons I oppose the death penalty, just that I'm personally comfortable with it in a way I can never be with state violence.


You're not okay if the state kills him, but you're okay if someone else does it personally on their own in prison, do I have that right? Not trying to argue here, genuinely asking, how is that not hypocritical?


----------



## TedEH (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> how is that not hypocritical?


The easy answer is that the state represents either a collective decision (that implies your participation) or a decision being made by government that may not be supported by the people being governed. It's a power and participation thing. When the government does something, you're either participating or lack the power to participate. That link doesn't exist when a random person acts of their own volition.

Not to speak for wheresthefbomb, but that's my take.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> You're not okay if the state kills him, but you're okay if someone else does it personally on their own in prison, do I have that right? Not trying to argue here, genuinely asking, how is that not hypocritical?



TedEH is on the right track. I don't believe anyone has the "right" to take revenge, but I am not the arbiter of rights. That's between an individual and god/ideological-compass-of-choice.

Condoning state violence welcomes the _inevitability _that innocent people will be killed. I will never be okay with that. But I can look at an individual situation and say, if this person's victim decides to exact revenge, I'm okay with that, even though I wouldn't condone or encourage it if they asked me.

Personally I don't see a contradiction but I understand others likely do. I guess what it really boils down to for me is individual agency and responsibility. Taking individual responsibility for ending a life, right or wrong, is a much more serious commitment than being a cog in an apparatus which administers lethal injections at the far end of many layers of bureaucracy.

Edit: To me, it is also specifically important that neither the state's monopoly on violence, nor individual decisions to take a life, are more or less valid in any ethical or logical sense. One is simply established as the norm, and validated by the entire system built around it.


----------



## coreysMonster (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> You're not okay if the state kills him, but you're okay if someone else does it personally on their own in prison, do I have that right? Not trying to argue here, genuinely asking, how is that not hypocritical?


The way I see it, if the government wrongfully kills somebody, there's not really any consequences for the government. If an individual kills someone else, there's severe repercussions for that depending on circumstances. We have legal frameworks in place to determine if a killing was warranted or not, see for instance Gary Plauché, who shot his son's molester point-blank on live TV and didn't go to prison. The government has no higher authority that can punish it, and that makes a big difference.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

I honestly don't see much of a difference, if I'm being honest. Both lead to the same outcome and both outcomes had a prenotion of "I'm okay with this as the outcome." It just feels like an ignorance is bliss situation where you can have the same outcome but then tell yourself you didn't particate..... while also cheering on the sidelines.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> I honestly don't see much of a difference, if I'm being honest. Both lead to the same outcome and both outcomes had a prenotion of "I'm okay with this as the outcome." It just feels like an ignorance is bliss situation where you can have the same outcome but then tell yourself you didn't particate..... while also cheering on the sidelines.



There's a difference between watching a football game and throwing the ball.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a difference between watching a football game and throwing the ball.


Oh come on here, you seriously can't compare football to murder.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> Oh come on here, you seriously can't compare football to murder.



I mean, it's an analogy. 

It's to @wheresthefbomb's point, participation in the process is different than observation of it.


----------



## CanserDYI (Oct 14, 2022)

I'll be honest, the death penalty is one area I'm really not well suited to speak on, and wish I hadn't, because frankly I haven't spent a whole lot of time questioning if I believe in it or don't. I typically don't, but my knee jerk reaction here in this thread shows me otherwise. People's wise commentary here shows me I haven't thought enough into this subject, and plan on doing more research.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> Oh come on here, you seriously can't compare football to murder.


Guess you've never seen when the Detroit Lions made the playoffs.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Guess you've never seen when the Detroit Lions made the playoffs.


As a bears fan, I can say we're not too far off haha


----------



## bostjan (Oct 14, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> I'll be honest, the death penalty is one area I'm really not well suited to speak on, and wish I hadn't, because frankly I haven't spent a whole lot of time questioning if I believe in it or don't. I typically don't, but my knee jerk reaction here in this thread shows me otherwise. People's wise commentary here shows me I haven't thought enough into this subject, and plan on doing more research.


That's a very mature thing to say.

I think the issue gets people just as fired up as abortion. Except, at least in my mind, the facts surrounding the matter are much clearer with the death penalty. We will never know how many innocent people get executed, but we can track how many innocent people are executed that we find out are innocent, which puts a minimum floor on it. Since there are many witnesses, we can look at anecdotes about botched executions to get an idea of the bare minimum floor of how often they are botched, etc. Yet still, we will possibly never get Americans to agree on what they want for the nation.

The other part of this is to look at other countries. Most modern western governments have now abolished capital punishment, with a few notable exceptions. But, one thing is for sure: the USA does it worse than any other developed nation.  Heck, even fricken China, who executes tons of people for pretty much whatever crimes they decide on the fly, has the method down pat.



Albake21 said:


> As a bears fan, I can say we're not too far off haha


Oof. My condolences.


----------



## Drew (Oct 14, 2022)

sleewell said:


> he should not be alive. tax payer dollars to keep him in a cell for 60-70 years is a huge waste of money. give him a good slug of fentanyl and call it a day.


I haven't seen updated analysis in a while, but I knew it actually used to be keeper to keep someone in jail for life without parole than to execute them, because of all of the mandatory appeals.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 14, 2022)

That's true, executions, the way we do them in the USA, are expensive. Somewhere roundabout a million dollars, all said and done.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

If it really is true that it's more expensive to execute than prison, I will say that does make me look at my opinion a bit differently. 

I'll play devil's advocate and say at least if it's cheaper, that's a bonus. The only other good thing is like others have pointed out, at least now this loser has to suffer his life in confinement and be forced to live with the life perspective as he ages. 

Problem here though, is that I don't think prison will actually change a single thought in this dude's mind. He showed zero emotion during the entire trial, nor did he even react when the verdict was read. I can see this dude 30 years from now still doubling down, and that's what disturbs me.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 14, 2022)

Don't let a lack of remorse after 30 years disturb you. In some cases all we want and need is peace of mind that the person is removed from society, is not a threat and true reform behind bars is irrelevant.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 14, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 115833
> 
> 
> Don't let a lack of remorse after 30 years disturb you. In some cases all we want and need is peace of mind that the person is removed from society, is not a threat and true reform behind bars is irrelevant.


Yeah but, if they had executed Manson, would we have profound quotes like:



Charles Manson said:


> I know and understand you are much more than what I think you are but first I must deal with you the way I think you even if that's only my own thinking and not you.





Charles Manson said:


> You people would convict a grilled cheese sandwich of murder and the people wouldn’t question it.





Charles Manson said:


> Do you feel blame? Are you mad? Uh, do you feel like wolf kabob Roth vantage? Gefrannis booj pooch boo jujube; bear-ramage. Jigiji geeji geeja geeble Google. Begep flagaggle vaggle veditch-waggle bagga?



Or my favourite Bob Odenkirk bit...



Ask Manson Mailbag said:


> _Dear Charles, I have three rambunctious children. How do you remove a tomato stain from a Persian rug?_





Bob Odenkirk as Charles Manson said:


> You can't get a stain out! You think I'm the stain- they say "Charlie is a stain," and they tried to rub me out and put me in a jail cell, only you don't- you just spread me around more! I'm inside your children, I'm a stain all out there in the world... I'm not just locked up, you're locked up in the prison! I'm free, I'm fr.. I'm... floating around and looking around. I like it up here. ...
> 
> ...
> 
> You should try some lemon juice.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## narad (Oct 14, 2022)

vilk said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean, in a weird way, that almost seems more revenge-ish. _Make this monster learn to understand the meaning of his actions and then live with the regret within the penal system until he dies of natural causes, as a punishment._
> 
> If it's no longer about rehabilitation, just cut the sucker out of this mortal coil.


Because that's the human experience. I think there's something sadder about people being misguided in life at a young age, which I think could happen to any of us given the right circumstances, and then just being killed before having to reconcile with what they've done with maturity. It's weirder to me to sentence someone to death while their mindset is still glad or content or whatever that they did what they did, although some will never change.


----------



## Albake21 (Oct 14, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Yeah but, if they had executed Manson, would we have profound quotes like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not so sure Manson is a great example when him and the rest of his cult were sentenced to death row, avoided it because of law changes, and then just only a few months ago, one of the women who murdered like 5 people is now out on parole as of this month. That's pretty fucking gross to me.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> I'm not so sure Manson is a great example when him and the rest of his cult were sentenced to death row, avoided it because of law changes, and then just only a few months ago, one of the women who murdered like 5 people is now out on parole as of this month. That's pretty fucking gross to me.


Or is it the perfect example?

You talking about Patricia Krenwinkel? Isn't there only one of the women still behind bars at this point? I know a bunch of them have already been paroled, and a few are dead. One of the ones who was paroled has basically said she had no remorse, but she was paroled anyway, and still seems to be playing the part, at least outwardly. I don't think any of the paroled Manson family members have since killed anyone, though, at least that authorities are aware. I'm not sure what any of this says about anything. Maybe the fact that they didn't start viciously attacking like a rabid dog the moment the handcuffs came off surprised some people. But it's not like anyone is going to hire them to run a daycare or whatever, and it's not like any of them are going to go on to find the cure for covid or something, either. 

So, I guess you have to choose how to look at it: is it a societal issue or a moral issue? From a moral standpoint, is it the right thing to parole these people after 5 decades in prison, or do they need to be punished for the rest of their lives? From a societal standpoint, does society gain anything by having them free? Does society gain anything by having them locked up? I suppose that I'm fairly firm on the way I see the societal side of it: these people provide a greater risk to society than they provide a reward. And I guess that's why I say that I have no philosophical qualms with the death penalty. But, as I mentioned before, I think that the risk of allowing the government with it's stupid ignorant courts to have the ultimate power of life and death over the people of the population is far too scary to allow, so I'm opposed to the death penalty in practice. And I don't even really care about the moral viewpoint of it, because, to me, if something is shown to have a much greater risk than reward for society, and is the least bit morally grey, we ought to go with what is likely to benefit society. Otherwise, maybe our morals are improperly formulated and justified anyway.


----------



## AMOS (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> I'm all for this notion, the idea of moving on from it feels like civilization evolving a bit. But my main issue is that something harsher than just prison needs to replace it. IMO prison time is not enough for scum like this, and that's my main issue with the whole ordeal. It needs to be death or at the least comparable to death.


Prison will not be suitable justice for the families that'll never see their kids again. Civilization evolving past the death penalty is crap as well, if we were civilized we wouldn't be killing others in the first place. The world will impress me when murders no longer happen, but I know lenient punishment is not a deterrent. Life at hard labor is better than life in prison, as far as the families of the victims are concerned. A lot of Arab and Asian countries will make your head spin regarding how strict their punishments are, the USA is Mister Rogers neighborhood in comparison.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 14, 2022)

AMOS said:


> if we were civilized we wouldn't be killing others in the first place.


I'm glad you're finally agreeing with getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 14, 2022)

Albake21 said:


> I'm not so sure Manson is a great example when him and the rest of his cult were sentenced to death row, avoided it because of law changes, and then just only a few months ago, one of the women who murdered like 5 people is now out on parole as of this month. That's pretty fucking gross to me.


I partially agree with your point only because their sentencing was so messy with the CA law change commuting their death penalty to life in prison, but I only mentioned Manson not Krenwinkle, Watson et al. But my point is still valid in that if someone dies in prison an unrepentant psycho, I do not consider that a waste of time and it would have thus been better to kill them quickly. Cruz will die in prison. I could care less if he finds Jesus or carves a swastika in his forehead between now and then. He is suitably punished. By refusing to kill someone (even a very bad someone) we are one step closer to a civilized society. Once we ban guns so this doesn't happen in the first fucking place we'll be a whole lot closer still.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 14, 2022)

We all die at some point, so the death penalty isn’t “the harshest punishment”, it’s merely speeding up the inevitable. In fact, rotting in prison would be worse than dying. (I wouldn’t want to force the death penalty on others, but I would rather die up front than spend decades locked up if I were in the position of a convict).




mmr007 said:


> Once we ban guns so this doesn't happen in the first fucking place we'll be a whole lot closer still.


I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this to happen; if it ever happen in the US, it will be at least fifty to one-hundred years out.

Besides, focusing on the gun itself as the problem is short sighted (and wrong) IMO. The gun is just a tool, like the death penalty. Or imprisonment. Or money. And a lot of other things.

Our focus needs to be on finding out why people behave this way and correcting these issues, because people can continue to effect the same outcome with a different tool(s) once the scary black gun or whatever other current object of fear happens to be is banned. We sadly have ample evidence to support this (mass attacks with explosives, knives, driving vehicles into crowds, etc.). It looks like there is something wrong with modern society, particularly, though not exclusively, in the US, that needs to be addressed. And while that will be more difficult than banning guns, even in the US, it is necessary if we want a civilized society.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 14, 2022)

I wasn't planning on holding my breath because I have prior plans this weekend anyway. However focusing on the gun as a problem is NOT short sighted. Unlike other "tools" it kills quickly and en masse. I am all for finding out what mental illnesses seem to plague so many young American men while simultaneously banning a useless relic of a time when american bison outnumbered american people 700 to 1 and the american dream was living through the winter without a witch cursing your whole town


----------



## narad (Oct 14, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> I wasn't planning on holding my breath because I have prior plans this weekend anyway. However focusing on the gun as a problem is NOT short sighted. Unlike other "tools" it kills quickly and en masse. I am all for finding out what mental illnesses seem to plague so many young American men while simultaneously banning a useless relic of a time when american bison outnumbered american people 700 to 1 and the american dream was living through the winter without a witch cursing your whole town


The idea that guns are just tools and are therefore basically indistinguishable in terms of any other important and relevant property when it comes to mass killings is really too insane to warrant arguing against.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 14, 2022)

narad said:


> The idea that guns are just tools and are therefore basically indistinguishable in terms of any other important and relevant property when it comes to mass killings is really too insane to warrant arguing against.


Of course it is...I know first hand it is harder to rent an air compressor at Home Depot than to buy a AR15 at a gun store. Not all tools are the same


----------



## tedtan (Oct 14, 2022)

narad said:


> The idea that guns are just tools and are therefore basically indistinguishable in terms of any other important and relevant property when it comes to mass killings is really too insane to warrant arguing against.


narad’s gonna narad, but I never claimed that all the tools are equally efficient or indistinguishable, so don’t put those words in my mouth.

All I’m saying is that if I need to hammer in a nail, I can do that with a hammer. But if my hammer is lost, I can use the back poll end of an axe. Or the side of a wrench. Or a rock. Or a a stick with some metal over the striking surface.

There are many means to an end. Not equally efficient, but many ways to get there.


----------



## narad (Oct 15, 2022)

tedtan said:


> narad’s gonna narad, but I never claimed that all the tools are equally efficient or indistinguishable, so don’t put those words in my mouth.
> 
> All I’m saying is that if I need to hammer in a nail, I can do that with a hammer. But if my hammer is lost, I can use the back poll end of an axe. Or the side of a wrench. Or a rock. Or a a stick with some metal over the striking surface.
> 
> There are many means to an end. Not equally efficient, but many ways to get there.


Some ends require efficient means. Efficiency is the entire difference between a murder and a mass murder. If you had to hammer in a bunch of nails, and your nails were capable of moving away from you at 3m/s, then it matters a lot whether you're capable of hammering them in with a single stroke or from a distance.

And apologies for the autocorrect -- inane, not insane.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 15, 2022)

tedtan said:


> narad’s gonna narad, but I never claimed that all the tools are equally efficient or indistinguishable, so don’t put those words in my mouth.
> 
> All I’m saying is that if I need to hammer in a nail, I can do that with a hammer. But if my hammer is lost, I can use the back poll end of an axe. Or the side of a wrench. Or a rock. Or a a stick with some metal over the striking surface.
> 
> There are many means to an end. Not equally efficient, but many ways to get there.


It's hard to do a mass shooting without a gun though.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 15, 2022)

narad said:


> Some ends require efficient means. Efficiency is the entire difference between a murder and a mass murder. If you had to hammer in a bunch of nails, and your nails were capable of moving away from you at 3m/s, then it matters a lot whether you're capable of hammering them in with a single stroke or from a distance.
> 
> And apologies for the autocorrect -- inane, not insane.


As one example, a couple of weeks ago in Thailand, an ex-cop went into a daycare with a knife and a gun. He killed 37 people, mostly with a knife while inside the daycare, then started using the gun after leaving the daycare on his way home to kill his family.




StevenC said:


> It's hard to do a mass shooting without a gun though.


Sure, if you define it as a mass shooting, but defining it that way closes the mind off to other possibilities. If you broaden the definition to mass murder, you look at things a bit differently.

Also, I’m not saying that addressing the gun issue won’t have an impact, only that addressing guns without addressing the underlying reasons that cause people to act out mass murders in the first place will only shift the manner in which the mass murders are carried out. Addressing guns only is tantamount to putting a bandaid on the proverbial gunshot wound; it fails to adequately address the situation.

We are more deeply fucked as a society than simply “guns”. Guns are surface level, superficial. The current disease goes deeper, and if we want to address it, we must also dig deeper than the surface level.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 15, 2022)

tedtan said:


> Sure, if you define it as a mass shooting, but defining it that way closes the mind off to other possibilities. If you broaden the definition to mass murder, you look at things a bit differently.
> 
> Also, I’m not saying that addressing the gun issue won’t have an impact, only that addressing guns without addressing the underlying reasons that cause people to act out mass murders in the first place will only shift the manner in which the mass murders are carried out. Addressing guns only is tantamount to putting a bandaid on the proverbial gunshot wound; it fails to adequately address the situation.
> 
> We are more deeply fucked as a society than simply “guns”. Guns are surface level, superficial. The current disease goes deeper, and if we want to address it, we must also dig deeper than the surface level.


That's a scapegoat to avoid doing anything about guns.

Getting rid of guns will absolutely do more to stop murders whether mass or individual. 

The rest of the world also has shitty mental healthcare but no guns.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 15, 2022)

Let me put it this way....when you have children in a new home, you child proof the new home. You put locks on cabinets with bleach stored in them, you put covers on electric sockets etc....What you don't do is endlessly try and figure out why small children lack the developed mentally capacity for recognizing dangers and avoiding it....you remove or prevent access to the danger. That's where we are at. We need to child proof the US by locking up or taking away the guns. I heard a lot of people in this forum pissed off enough about children getting murdered by guns that they want the death penalty at any cost....now how about being pissed off enough that you will AT LEAST give up guns....or maybe you're not that upset yet about children constantly getting massacred. I gave up mine....your move.


----------



## StevenC (Oct 15, 2022)

Two Dads Charged with Attempted Murder After Daughters Were Shot in Florida Road Rage Incident


William Hale and Frank Allison got into a fight while driving near Jacksonville and each shot into the other's vehicle, cops say




people.com





Other countries have road rage too.


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 15, 2022)

odibrom said:


> Death penalty and gun ownership are on the same level... One kind of justifies the existence of the other... which one came first, the Egg or the Chicken?


The egg came first.

But on the topic of heinous crimes and death penalty, although I consider myself moderate, I am very much for the death penalty. While working in mental health, the facility in which I worked often took problem cases from the county jail--inmates who were on suicide watch or had critical health problems. After seeing the complete lack of empathy and disregard for others out of those, I became very much pro death penalty. There are, unfortunately, some who will never be rehabilitated to a point where they are safe to be around other humans in society.

I mean, I was working the locked unit of an inpatient psychiatric ward. It was the wing of the hospital that used chemical restraints on patients and had padded rooms that locked from the outside. I literally spent a Halloween working night shift having to enter a locked room with a mildly mentally retarded individual who had bludgeoned people to death so that I could take his blood pressure multiple times throughout the night. I had to care for convicted murders and rapists while I worked in that facility and am so glad that I no longer work in mental health after those experiences.

As mentioned before, the sentencing for a crime is usually more a function of compromises rather than a reflection of the heinousness of the crime.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 15, 2022)

Grindspine said:


> retarded



1. that word is a slur. the rhetorical purpose of a slur is to dehumanize a particular group of people to make their eradication more palatable. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but given the fact that this is a conversation about literally killing people, it deserves a little care. there are lots of other ways to say what you're trying to say.

2. this seems like a case of society failing one of its most vulnerable. I work with children with a wide range of exceptionalities/special needs, and all too often they end up as wards of the criminal "justice" system because society fails to give them the tools to exist in any other way. once a person enters into that kind of environment, it only begets more of itself. I'm sure that person was very scary and dangerous, but it isn't because they were somehow psychopathically defective and needed to be put down ASAP. It's because they were consistently failed by the world they were born into. To borrow a friend's succinct summation, working in fields like mine (and yours) is to be working on the front lines of the failures of society.

while I'm quoting people, my dad's views on the subject are "we used to have places where 'those people' went, and then it worked fine for the rest of us." We still do, if they fail to assimilate to an acceptable extent or don't have a safety net, they just get shuffled into the prison system where they will never have the chance to learn anything but violence.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 15, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> Let me put it this way....when you have children in a new home, you child proof the new home. You put locks on cabinets with bleach stored in them, you put covers on electric sockets etc....What you don't do is endlessly try and figure out why small children lack the developed mentally capacity for recognizing dangers and avoiding it....you remove or prevent access to the danger. That's where we are at. We need to child proof the US by locking up or taking away the guns. I heard a lot of people in this forum pissed off enough about children getting murdered by guns that they want the death penalty at any cost....now how about being pissed off enough that you will AT LEAST give up guns....or maybe you're not that upset yet about children constantly getting massacred. I gave up mine....your move.


We don’t need to try to find out why children can’t identify danger. Unfortunately, we do need to identify why people are currently engaging in mass shootings.

Prior to the last two or three decades, there were shootings, but they were almost always a case of someone finding out their wife was having an affair and going and shooting the wife and boyfriend. Or someone getting fired from their job and shooting their former boss and HR people. They were angry about being wronged in some specific way and took their anger out on the specific people wronging them. They weren’t situations where people went and shot a large number of people they didn’t know.

The mass shootings we’ve seen over the past few decades are a new phenomena and go beyond just guns. As such, we do need to identify what happened in the shooters’ upbringing, society at large, etc. that causes them to take out their anger/pain/whatever on large groups of random people.

And to spell it out so there is no misunderstanding, addressing the gun issue and identifying the underlying issues that cause mass murder events (whether shootings or otherwise) are not mutually exclusive, so there is no reason to try to paint them as such.




StevenC said:


> That's a scapegoat to avoid doing anything about guns.
> 
> Getting rid of guns will absolutely do more to stop murders whether mass or individual.
> 
> The rest of the world also has shitty mental healthcare but no guns.


No, I’m fine with addressing the gun issue, but it won’t stop people from killing one another, even en mass. This is a deeper issue than just guns.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 15, 2022)

We're talking past each other because you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there are mass shootings or just shootings. It doesn't matter if we have a unique phenomenon in the US of too many violent video games/movies or not enough breast feeding as a child and/or not enough sex as an adult. Study and analyze to your heart's content but in the meantime we have proven (not just from the parkland shooting but the road rage example above) that we are not responsible enough as a society to have guns. As I said before guns are cool. I like guns. But I would rather live in a society with no guns, even for me the sane (questionable) and law-abiding citizen if it means my neighbors (even those 2000 miles away) can once again expect to see their kids again after dropping them off at school. But guns rights advocates won't have it. The NRA won't have it. One step forward for sensible gun ownership is seen as two steps back for absolute unfettered right to get have own and shoot as many guns as our slave owning founding fathers intended.

As I said before, I would absolutely be fine with a gun owning society if the requirements for ownership were so strict (as they should be) that ONLY sane and responsible persons would have guns. But the NRA won't have it. As I said before, responsible gun owners have no problem with being lumped in with a cast of mentally ill misfits that weren't loved by anyone in school, at home, at work, in bed.....


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 15, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> 1. that word is a slur. the rhetorical purpose of a slur is to dehumanize a particular group of people to make their eradication more palatable. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but given the fact that this is a conversation about literally killing people, it deserves a little care. there are lots of other ways to say what you're trying to say.
> 
> 2. this seems like a case of society failing one of its most vulnerable. I work with children with a wide range of exceptionalities/special needs, and all too often they end up as wards of the criminal "justice" system because society fails to give them the tools to exist in any other way. once a person enters into that kind of environment, it only begets more of itself. I'm sure that person was very scary and dangerous, but it isn't because they were somehow psychopathically defective and needed to be put down ASAP. It's because they were consistently failed by the world they were born into. To borrow a friend's succinct summation, working in fields like mine (and yours) is to be working on the front lines of the failures of society.
> 
> while I'm quoting people, my dad's views on the subject are "we used to have places where 'those people' went, and then it worked fine for the rest of us." We still do, if they fail to assimilate to an acceptable extent or don't have a safety net, they just get shuffled into the prison system where they will never have the chance to learn anything but violence.


@wheresthefbomb

I was working in a psychiatric care facility. I was not using "retarded" as a slur, as it was a medical diagnosis of that individual, which is part of why he was in the care of a psychiatric facility rather than in the care of a prison. That individual had an IQ near 70 and had been living in group homes since he was unable to function on a normal basis due to his mental disabilities.

I was using the word in its proper, clinical meaning.

Was it a failure of society that led to that individual being in a psychiatric facility, arguably, yes. However, seeing coworkers blaming a sickness, disorder, or otherwise dismissing personal responsibility of not harming others is part of why I decided to leave that field. Some people can be helped. Unfortunately, despite advances in pharmacology and clinical care, some individuals cannot be helped by means we have today. It is society's decision where to draw the line on how much harm an individual can cause before it is no longer tolerated.

Note that I am speaking from personal experience with a few cases. I am not saying that all individuals with mental disabilities are guilty of harming others, as they are not. It is a horrible stigma that many of them bear. For those that do harm others, there is a point where mental health care and prison systems no longer functionally serve a purpose for those people or for society at large.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 15, 2022)

Grindspine said:


> @wheresthefbomb
> 
> I was working in a psychiatric care facility. I was not using "retarded" as a slur, as it was a medical diagnosis of that individual, which is part of why he was in the care of a psychiatric facility rather than in the care of a prison. That individual had an IQ near 70 and had been living in group homes since he was unable to function on a normal basis due to his mental disabilities.



As I said, I'm sure it wasn't your intent. However, it has been quite a few years since that term has been used in legitimate medical diagnoses due to recognition of its aforementioned status as a slur. Since it sounds like it's been a while since you've been in that environment, it's entirely understandable you didn't know that. So I'm letting you know.

I stand by my assertion that specifically and especially in a discussion about the ethics of killing people deemed unfit for society, it bears special care not to use terms which function to obfuscate the ethics of that very question.


----------



## narad (Oct 15, 2022)

tedtan said:


> As one example, a couple of weeks ago in Thailand, an ex-cop went into a daycare with a knife and a gun. He killed 37 people, mostly with a knife while inside the daycare, then started using the gun after leaving the daycare on his way home to kill his family.


I'm confused what this is proving in your mind? You can kill 20+ people with a knife when they're ~3 years old and trapped in a room and there are no adults around and alive to fight you. A lot of the US violence is at a much older age, with a lot more space, and a lot more adults, and a lot more law enforcement. It's silly to think that you can walk into a high school with a knife and expect to do anywhere near the damage you can with a gun. And if on average we lower the death toll of these violent outbreaks, sounds good to me! Hell, maybe if the attacker was using a knife, you might even be able to get the cops to go in and confront them for once.

On the flip side, people wax on about needing to know the underlying causes. Of what? Of people hating each other? Of people not being happy and wanting to take it out on people? Of people wanting the notoriety? That's as old as time. And people have been studying such things for forever. And people already study them now. We've been studying serial killers in such ways since the 70s - and while that's made for some great Netflix, it doesn't help prevent serial killers. How long do you think it takes to understand what gives rise to mass shooters? Do you have a plan that doesn't end up with us in 2050 not having a clear consensus on things?

Hypothetically, even if it was the simple problem that it obviously isn't, there's still not a simple solution:
Caused by a broken home? We can't fix all homes.
Caused by bullying? You can't stop kids from bullying.
Caused by being rejected? You can't make everyone popular.
Spurred on by online communities? You can't stop free speech.

So actually I think the talk "understanding the problem" [of being human] is the cop-out. It takes away from changes we can make now, and says, let's put some indeterminate amount of thinking about the problem rather than doing anything. It's the non-religious version of "thoughts and prayers".

Whereas restricting guns has an immediate and obvious effect. People trying to get guns to pull it off effectively are more likely to trip flags and draw attention that could prevent the attack, and anyone else has to try it with a knife or other weapon. I don't know about you but I'd much rather take my chances against someone with a knife.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 15, 2022)




----------



## Grindspine (Oct 15, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> As I said, I'm sure it wasn't your intent. However, it has been quite a few years since that term has been used in legitimate medical diagnoses due to recognition of its aforementioned status as a slur. Since it sounds like it's been a while since you've been in that environment, it's entirely understandable you didn't know that. So I'm letting you know.
> 
> I stand by my assertion that specifically and especially in a discussion about the ethics of killing people deemed unfit for society, it bears special care not to use terms which function to obfuscate the ethics of that very question.


My time working in psych was back in 2005 and 2006. I then moved to laboratory medicine in the same hospital, so I still did work with blood samples from that area and saw diagnoses listed on emergency room registrations as the ER was where psychiatric patients were admitted after-hours. I was still seeing that diagnosis come up in charting at least through 2012. I have since moved to anatomical pathology, so am further removed from that area of medicine than I was 10 years ago.

Apologies if anyone took that as a slur. I think that my use of it and explanation was not put forth in a way to offend anyone. 

Unfortunately, when someone who is found guilty of multiple homicides has history of mental disabilities, it looks bad for anyone with similar problems. Stigma is a difficult thing. It is difficult for many people to understand if there is separation between disability, illness, and a person's behaviors. They are all linked, but not necessary causal.


----------



## vilk (Oct 16, 2022)

It's literally a euphemism. Ironically, we still use the word _slow, _which means literally the exact same thing and is used the same way, and that is still considered an acceptable euphemism.

Of course we totally abused the word retarded and used it for every kind of situation, but that doesn't necessarily change what the word is or what it means.

A good parallel is the _gay_, which is also a euphemism, and was used as a pejorative for decades, but today it's pretty much totally acceptable to use the word as long as it's not being made into a pejorative. No one would be upset if you said "my brother is gay" so long as he's actually homosexual. No one should be offended if you say "the patient was retarded" so long as he actually had an applicable mental handicap.

Just my 2c. And yes I realize that being homosexual is not an inherently negative quality as many would argue that being mentally handicapped is... But that's a very recent mindset. For a long time homosexuality was thought of as a mental illness. But I digress.


----------



## narad (Oct 16, 2022)

vilk said:


> It's literally a euphemism. Ironically, we still use the word _slow, _which means literally the exact same thing and is used the same way, and that is still considered an acceptable euphemism.
> 
> Of course we totally abused the word retarded and used it for every kind of situation, but that doesn't necessarily change what the word is or what it means.
> 
> ...



I watched Idiocracy again the other day, after maybe not seeing it for 10-15 years. It was jarring how frequently retarded is used as it once was (I grew up with that being the default classroom insult), but actually I think worked really well now in making a contrast between the future people and the protagonist guy.


----------



## mastapimp (Oct 17, 2022)

vilk said:


> Just my 2c. And yes I realize that being homosexual is not an inherently negative quality as many would argue that being mentally handicapped is... But that's a very recent mindset. For a long time homosexuality was thought of as a mental illness. But I digress.


Joke's on you... "homosexual" is now a "naughty word" in the context of psychology.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 17, 2022)

Every word eventually becomes a slur. I guess we ought to just read the context first and foremost.

Anyway, with the death penalty, the prisoner is dead. With life in prison without the possibility of parole, there is a chance that the prisoner could escape and kill again, or maybe a very slim chance they might escape and never kill again, or an even smaller chance they might escape and then prove their innocence. Or, there's a chance this dude could kill his cellmate in prison. Who knows? If they body bag him, he won't be doing anything at all except pushing up the daisies and pining for the fjords, or maybe feeding a few worms. Is that justice? Yeah, I mean, in that case it would be, but feel free to object for whatever reason. We could argue about it until we are all blue in the mouth, and it won't do anybody any good.

The world is a messy, messy place. We pretend to be civilized, but even in places like Switzerland, where the HDI is extremely high, there have been mass shootings. Gandhi was one of the heroes of history, who used logic and eschewed violence for pacifism, yet he was murdered with a Baretta and three bullets. No one gets a pass from death, and violence can hit anyone anywhere for any reason or for no reason at all. Tyrants will always come to power and disorder will always overcome order, given enough time. Ultimately there is no perfect justice, only specific cases where justice was served or not. Cruz is convicted for his crimes, so that's pretty much the best you could ask for. Probably hundreds of other murders happen every year where the murderer does _not_ get convicted. 

All that said, life is too short. Don't get yourself into trouble, but don't put up with any toxic people nor their abuse, either.

Cruz will die eventually. Either someone will take him out in prison, or he'll get sick, or who knows, maybe he'll live to be 100 and die in prison. I wouldn't worry about it too much, though, because, your odds of be murdered by him are probably less than your odds of getting eaten by a wild animal, unless you somehow wind up as the guy's cellmate or whatever.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 17, 2022)

narad said:


> I'm confused what this is proving in your mind? You can kill 20+ people with a knife when they're ~3 years old and trapped in a room and there are no adults around and alive to fight you. A lot of the US violence is at a much older age, with a lot more space, and a lot more adults, and a lot more law enforcement. It's silly to think that you can walk into a high school with a knife and expect to do anywhere near the damage you can with a gun. And if on average we lower the death toll of these violent outbreaks, sounds good to me! Hell, maybe if the attacker was using a knife, you might even be able to get the cops to go in and confront them for once.
> 
> On the flip side, people wax on about needing to know the underlying causes. Of what? Of people hating each other? Of people not being happy and wanting to take it out on people? Of people wanting the notoriety? That's as old as time. And people have been studying such things for forever. And people already study them now. We've been studying serial killers in such ways since the 70s - and while that's made for some great Netflix, it doesn't help prevent serial killers. How long do you think it takes to understand what gives rise to mass shooters? Do you have a plan that doesn't end up with us in 2050 not having a clear consensus on things?
> 
> ...


That link to the Thailand incident was just the first that came up; there are others. But it needn’t be knife, specifically. It could be an IED, an improvised chemical weapon, arson, whatever.

Also, I’m fine with restricting access to guns and have never stated otherwise. You guys are arguing a talking point rather than responding to what I actually said.




mmr007 said:


> We're talking past each other because you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there are mass shootings or just shootings. It doesn't matter if we have a unique phenomenon in the US of too many violent video games/movies or not enough breast feeding as a child and/or not enough sex as an adult. Study and analyze to your heart's content but in the meantime we have proven (not just from the parkland shooting but the road rage example above) that we are not responsible enough as a society to have guns. As I said before guns are cool. I like guns. But I would rather live in a society with no guns, even for me the sane (questionable) and law-abiding citizen if it means my neighbors (even those 2000 miles away) can once again expect to see their kids again after dropping them off at school. But guns rights advocates won't have it. The NRA won't have it. One step forward for sensible gun ownership is seen as two steps back for absolute unfettered right to get have own and shoot as many guns as our slave owning founding fathers intended.
> 
> As I said before, I would absolutely be fine with a gun owning society if the requirements for ownership were so strict (as they should be) that ONLY sane and responsible persons would have guns. But the NRA won't have it. As I said before, responsible gun owners have no problem with being lumped in with a cast of mentally ill misfits that weren't loved by anyone in school, at home, at work, in bed.....


The points you’re missing is that even if we could remove all guns in the US (which we won’t be able to do until we have a new Supreme Court at the earliest) so that the “cast of mentally ill misfits that weren't loved by anyone in school, at home, at work, in bed” can’t shoot large groups of people, 1) they can still kill large groups of people via other means, and 2) when you remove access to the readily available option(s), you’ll see a spike in the use of other methods.

Until you address the underlying issue, you aren’t solving the problem, you’re merely treating a symptom of the problem. (And to make it clear, I’m not saying don’t treat the symptom, I’m saying that merely treating the symptom doesn’t go far enough to adequately address the issue).


----------



## bostjan (Oct 17, 2022)

It's true that one of the first mass murders at a school recorded in the USA was perpetrated with dynamite in the 1920's. However, the vast majority have been shootings. There's a lot of ongoing research into this, but it's pretty universally believed by experts in the field of psychology that the majority of these violent acts would have been prevented altogether if the kids simply could not have found guns in the first place. I.e., if these kids would have not had guns, most of the attacks would not have occurred with other weapons in their place, and the majority of the attacks that would have been perpetrated with other weapons would have been far less effective.

We should never let perfection stand in the way of a major improvement. If the argument takes the form of defending our 2A rights or tyrannical governments or whatever, then we can discuss that. However, the idea that removing all guns from the USA would not prevent murder completely is kind of a strange thing to bring up when we are having mass shootings in schools on pretty much a weekly basis now.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> 2) when you remove access to the readily available option(s), you’ll see a spike in the use of other methods.





tedtan said:


> Until you address the underlying issue


What if you are to argue that at least one underlying issue is that very capable weapons are very convenient? I've always been reasonably convinced that a lot of crime happens because of opportunity - and one of the things I think people don't like saying out loud is that there's a bit of a self-driving problem involved in that gun shootings being in the news puts that thought into people's heads. If you have the idea, and you have the tools, that makes you more likely to act than if you didn't have either the idea or the tools.


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 17, 2022)

Easy access is a thing. There has been an explosion of car thefts for Kia and Hyundai because they can be stolen with an iphone charger. There has been subsequent explosion in social media attention on it (the thieves film the joyrides themselves). I don't know why someone feels antisocial enough to steal and joyride a car (they aren't stealing for financial gain), but there is no question if the cars were harder to steal, those cars would still be in their owner's driveways. Dirtbags are gonna dirtbag. Remove access to guns and parents can see their kids come home from school and play in their driveway.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 17, 2022)

bostjan said:


> It's true that one of the first mass murders at a school recorded in the USA was perpetrated with dynamite in the 1920's. However, the vast majority have been shootings. There's a lot of ongoing research into this, but it's pretty universally believed by experts in the field of psychology that the majority of these violent acts would have been prevented altogether if the kids simply could not have found guns in the first place. I.e., if these kids would have not had guns, most of the attacks would not have occurred with other weapons in their place, and the majority of the attacks that would have been perpetrated with other weapons would have been far less effective.
> 
> We should never let perfection stand in the way of a major improvement. If the argument takes the form of defending our 2A rights or tyrannical governments or whatever, then we can discuss that. However, the idea that removing all guns from the USA would not prevent murder completely is kind of a strange thing to bring up when we are having mass shootings in schools on pretty much a weekly basis now.





TedEH said:


> What if you are to argue that at least one underlying issue is that very capable weapons are very convenient? I've always been reasonably convinced that a lot of crime happens because of opportunity - and one of the things I think people don't like saying out loud is that there's a bit of a self-driving problem involved in that gun shootings being in the news puts that thought into people's heads. If you have the idea, and you have the tools, that makes you more likely to act than if you didn't have either the idea or the tools.





mmr007 said:


> Easy access is a thing. There has been an explosion of car thefts for Kia and Hyundai because they can be stolen with an iphone charger. There has been subsequent explosion in social media attention on it (the thieves film the joyrides themselves). I don't know why someone feels antisocial enough to steal and joyride a car (they aren't stealing for financial gain), but there is no question if the cars were harder to steal, those cars would still be in their owner's driveways. Dirtbags are gonna dirtbag. Remove access to guns and parents can see their kids come home from school and play in their driveway.



Convenience and access are certainly relevant to crime in general, but in the cases of mass shootings I’ve heard or read about, the mass shooters tend to plan out their rampage days, weeks, or even months in advance. That indicates that these situations aren’t crimes of opportunity or convenience, but something more evil, for lack of a better word. As such, it doesn’t seem like they would just give up on their plans if the most convenient means of carrying them out were unavailable. That doesn’t seem congruent. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems more likely, and more consistent with that type of planning, that they would alter their plans to incorporate alternate means rather than simply give up.

General gun violence is most certainly more opportunistic, though; I’m specifically referring to the mass shootings here.




bostjan said:


> We should never let perfection stand in the way of a major improvement. If the argument takes the form of defending our 2A rights or tyrannical governments or whatever, then we can discuss that. However, the idea that removing all guns from the USA would not prevent murder completely is kind of a strange thing to bring up when we are having mass shootings in schools on pretty much a weekly basis now.



I don’t understand this part of your comment. I’ve gone out of my way several times to state that I don’t have any issue restricting access to guns, so I’m not letting perfection get in the way here.

What I’ve said is, paraphrased, mass shootings are *A* problem symptomatic of something larger, not *THE* problem itself. And while we should, in fact, restrict access to guns to improve things, doing so doesn’t solve the problem of mass murders. As with any case of treating the symptom, it makes the disease easier to live with but doesn’t cure the disease.

So restrict access to guns, but don’t then pat yourself on the back thinking you’ve solved the problem because the disease is still festering.

The gun control is one step of the journey, not the entire journey.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> That indicates that these situations aren’t crimes of opportunity or convenience, but something more evil, for lack of a better word. As such, it doesn’t seem like they would just give up on their plans if the most convenient means of carrying them out were unavailable. That doesn’t seem congruent. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems more likely, and more consistent with that type of planning, that they would alter their plans to incorporate alternate means rather than simply give up.


I disagree, to a point. I do think that living in a system that grants convenient access to weapons puts you in a position where you'd think to make that plan in the first place. Opportunity isn't constrained to any particular timeframe. In the case you suggested - where guns were unavailable to someone who just wanted to _do evil_ - I'd expect you'd have one of a few cases happen:
a) The chosen weapon might be one that does less damage to fewer people
b) The complexity needed to pull off the plan would exceed their capacity to either plan around it, or continue being angry enough to follow through.
c) They find another way, it's just a bad.

If any non-zero amount of cases land in a or b instead of c, then that's a worthwhile improvement.


----------



## tedtan (Oct 17, 2022)

TedEH said:


> I disagree, to a point. I do think that living in a system that grants convenient access to weapons puts you in a position where you'd think to make that plan in the first place. Opportunity isn't constrained to any particular timeframe. In the case you suggested - where guns were unavailable to someone who just wanted to _do evil_ - I'd expect you'd have one of a few cases happen:
> a) The chosen weapon might be one that does less damage to fewer people
> b) The complexity needed to pull off the plan would exceed their capacity to either plan around it, or continue being angry enough to follow through.
> c) They find another way, it's just a bad.
> ...


I agree that an alternate weapon may result in fewer injuries/deaths in some cases.

But the use of an alternate weapon could also result in more injuries/deaths, too (think of trapping people in a subway train and releasing an improvised chemical weapon, like a worse case version of the sarin gas attack in Japan back in 1995 (which resulted in 14 deaths)).


----------



## mmr007 (Oct 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> I agree that an alternate weapon may result in fewer injuries/deaths in some cases.
> 
> But the use of an alternate weapon could also result in more injuries/deaths, too (think of trapping people in a subway train and releasing an improvised chemical weapon, like a worse case version of the sarin gas attack in Japan back in 1995 (which resulted in 14 deaths)).


All right. Let's ban the guns and if we have a subway explode every week from chemical gas bombs and if we have road rage every day that ends in a deadly exchange of molotov cocktails ....I owe you coke.


----------



## narad (Oct 17, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> All right. Let's ban the guns and if we have a subway explode every week from chemical gas bombs and if we have road rage every day that ends in a deadly exchange of molotov cocktails ....I owe you coke.



It seems betting big on the idea that a significant portion of mass shooters were equally capable bombers / gas attackers and they'll just switch over once access to guns is restricted. 



tedtan said:


> I don’t understand this part of your comment. I’ve gone out of my way several times to state that I don’t have any issue restricting access to guns, so I’m not letting perfection get in the way here.
> 
> What I’ve said is, paraphrased, mass shootings are *A* problem symptomatic of something larger, not *THE* problem itself. And while we should, in fact, restrict access to guns to improve things, doing so doesn’t solve the problem of mass murders. As with any case of treating the symptom, it makes the disease easier to live with but doesn’t cure the disease.
> 
> ...



Yea, I mean, restrict nuclear weapons, but don't pat yourself on the back because war is just symptomatic of something larger, not THE problem itself.


----------



## TedEH (Oct 17, 2022)

tedtan said:


> But the use of an alternate weapon could also result in more injuries/deaths, too


Well, then I'd be asking why, if there are more effective solutions available, everyone defaults to guns? Again - guns are easy and convenient. In order for any incident to happen, it's got to pass a certain threshold of accessibility vs. the instigator's drive to commit whatever act.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 18, 2022)

tedtan said:


> I don’t understand this part of your comment. I’ve gone out of my way several times to state that I don’t have any issue restricting access to guns, so I’m not letting perfection get in the way here.
> 
> What I’ve said is, paraphrased, mass shootings are *A* problem symptomatic of something larger, not *THE* problem itself. And while we should, in fact, restrict access to guns to improve things, doing so doesn’t solve the problem of mass murders. As with any case of treating the symptom, it makes the disease easier to live with but doesn’t cure the disease.
> 
> ...



You aren't arguing that we should not restrict access to guns, but you *are* arguing that restricting access to guns will push teens who conduct mass shootings to utilize other weaponry. I'm saying that there is very little evidence of that, and, in fact, there is a significant amount of evidence to the contrary. If teens cannot access guns, they will mostly not conduct mass murder.

The shooting is not the symptom of the mass murder in schools, it is the method. I'm not sure how that could get conflated. Sure, there are stabbings and bombings and kids who drown other kids, but those are not symptoms of murder, either, and also, more importantly, there is not an epidemic level of mass defenestration or beheading in US schools. There is of mass shooting.

There's a lot going into the psychology of mass shootings at schools, so there is no magic bullet (if you'll pardon the poor choice of figure of speech) to treat them all. There have been cases where the perpetrator wanted an easy fast path to infamy, which is probably the case for most largescale mass shootings in general, but there have also been cases where the motive was essentially bullying to the point where the tense emotional state of the teen just snaps. There are cases where the perpetrator didn't feel like they fit in and lost a sense of direction or purpose. And there were certainly cases where the perpetrator was just broken at the base psychological level and violence was inevitable. There has been a lot of literature about these topics, and in all but the last case, preventing easy access to firearms is widely believed to have prevented the incident altogether.

Just as you are not arguing against restricting access to guns, I am not arguing against the idea that better psychological screening and treatment (and most of all, destigmatizing asking for help) would be a huge leap in the right direction.

But also, look at the Aurora cinema shooter guy. That guy sought out help from professionals, even told them that he was thinking about mass murder, and they brushed him off. Not like it was cheap or fly-by-night psychiatric help this dude tried, either.

Yes, multiple safety systems in the USA are utterly broken and useless at this point, but these are not multiple steps on one journey we are talking about, but preventing people from getting to the same endpoint from multiple paths, so setting up a roadblock at the second-to-last checkpoint before the finish line is the most effective bottleneck we can impose, and any argument that such a checkpoint will be ineffective is counter-productive, whether you are saying to go ahead and do it or not.


----------



## bostjan (Oct 18, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> All right. Let's ban the guns and if we have a subway explode every week from chemical gas bombs and if we have road rage every day that ends in a deadly exchange of molotov cocktails ....I owe you coke.


You know, that's actually a great point. A molotov cocktail is probably the easiest deadly weapon for mass targeting to create. You just need a rag (garbage) an empty bottle (garbage) and a pint or so of petroleum (which the average American can access super easily).

Yet

If you saw a teen at the gas station, pulling empty bottles out of the trash and filling them with gasoline, I bet you'd flag them down and tell them "hey, don't do that, it's dangerous," or maybe even just call the cops. If you saw a teenager at the gun store purchasing a rifle and several boxes of ammunition, you'd probably keep your thoughts to yourself. (speaking of the general "you," not @mmr007 specifically)

But here's the thing: that one extra step of having to assemble to molotov is such a tiny potential barrier, yet it's still effective. In most US households, a child merely has to grab dad's 0.38 pistol and toss it in their book bag when mom isn't looking. There's virtually zero potential barrier for that.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Oct 18, 2022)

for the record I am both opposed to gun control legislation in its current and historical forms, and also confused by tedtan's angle on this


----------



## /wrists (Oct 31, 2022)

mmr007 said:


> Regardless of how heinous the criminal offense is, the death penalty is wrong. Besides it costs more to keep someone alive on death row for 20 years than it costs to keep them in regular maximum security for life.
> 
> That said, my personal political and moral feelings aside, if there is a poster child for getting the death penalty this guy is it and I don't understand the reasoning behind the penalty verdict compared to others who do get the death penalty.


I'm on the fence on the death penalty.

On one end, I have no moral problems with murdering a murderer. 

Someone brought up an interesting take that had me re-consider my stance though with those who are wrongfully killed. Would my perspective change if I was wrongfully convicted of a crime that might end with death? Probably.

I also understand that sometimes, sacrifices are made for the progression of humanity (without talking about good v. evil) or the greater good. In this case, those sacrifices would be those who are wrongly convicted. The more I think about it, the more I am against the death penalty, but a part of me does wish for agonizing death upon cases like this where we do have 99.99999999% certainty that the person is the perpetrator of the crime. 

My issue is killing the wrong person by accident through the death penalty.


----------



## nightflameauto (Oct 31, 2022)

evade said:


> I'm on the fence on the death penalty.
> 
> On one end, I have no moral problems with murdering a murderer.
> 
> ...


As much as I hate the prospect of where this is gonna go:
Wishing for an agonizing death for the perpetrator of a crime is a wish for vengeance. It is not the type of thought that you should hold up as an example of an expanded awareness or some sort of intelligence. Do we all want vengeance from time to time? Sure. We're human, and thus flawed. Is that a thing would should codify and practice?

I don't think we should. The justice system should be for justice. The reform system should be for reform. I know in America we've turned both into money filterers, but the "ideal" should be something better than, "Do you have the money to defend yourself against the accusation appropriately?" and "No? Fuck you."

Unless your argument is that we're filthy animals and should wallow in it. Which is a stance to take. Not a good one, but hey, you do you, bro.


----------



## narad (Oct 31, 2022)

nightflameauto said:


> As much as I hate the prospect of where this is gonna go:
> Wishing for an agonizing death for the perpetrator of a crime is a wish for vengeance. It is not the type of thought that you should hold up as an example of an expanded awareness or some sort of intelligence. Do we all want vengeance from time to time? Sure. We're human, and thus flawed. Is that a thing would should codify and practice?
> 
> I don't think we should. The justice system should be for justice. The reform system should be for reform. I know in America we've turned both into money filterers, but the "ideal" should be something better than, "Do you have the money to defend yourself against the accusation appropriately?" and "No? Fuck you."
> ...



TIL "progression of humanity" == "agonizing deaths fro wrongdoers". Who knew all those medieval guys were in peak civilization?


----------



## Grindspine (Oct 31, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> for the record I am both opposed to gun control legislation in its current and historical forms, and also confused by tedtan's angle on this


Just to be difficult, I am opposed to your being opposed to gun control legislation.

I have seen too much to be okay with guns. Bullet wounds are gross. Maybe I have that feeling because I have seen the physical trauma and emotional trauma guns create. I have never been on the trigger end. Maybe if I grew up holding guns and feeling all powerful, I would like them, but that isn't the case.

People who like guns are kinda gross too.


----------



## odibrom (Oct 31, 2022)

Grindspine said:


> (...)
> 
> People who like guns are kinda gross too.



Most are scared fools that think they have power with a gun in their hands... but the guns won't take the fear away, they will only feed it and fear is hungry for a show down...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 31, 2022)

Grindspine said:


> Just to be difficult, I am opposed to your being opposed to gun control legislation.
> 
> I have seen too much to be okay with guns. Bullet wounds are gross. Maybe I have that feeling because I have seen the physical trauma and emotional trauma guns create. I have never been on the trigger end. Maybe if I grew up holding guns and feeling all powerful, I would like them, but that isn't the case.
> 
> People who like guns are kinda gross too.



Knowing @wheresthefbomb, he's probably referring to how, historically, gun control has been used to keep legal guns out of the hands of "certain people", namely minority communities, leading to increased criminality even amongst the non-violent. 

Currently, gun control is an absolute mess, so while I definitely support it, how it's implemented now is, well, pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## Grindspine (Nov 1, 2022)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Knowing @wheresthefbomb, he's probably referring to how, historically, gun control has been used to keep legal guns out of the hands of "certain people", namely minority communities, leading to increased criminality even amongst the non-violent.
> 
> Currently, gun control is an absolute mess, so while I definitely support it, how it's implemented now is, well, pretty fucking stupid.


That makes a bit more sense and puts some more context on the subject.

For the sake of civilized debate, I understand the second amendment as in the need for the common citizen to be able to defend against tyranny. Of course, back when the second amendment was written, guns were a forceful way to stand against a tyrannical government. Of course, it also puts that into the situation of being part of a regulated militia.

Unfortunately, in today's society, individuals with guns don't do much vs a corrupted government. Arms don't serve the purpose in the same capacity

I still like how easy and effective it is just to say guns are gross. Gun violence and gun displays are distasteful to me.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 1, 2022)

@Grindspine Max has it right, but you can certainly be forgiven for interpreting my lack of context as you did. 

I didn't grow up with guns either. I own one but it's not something I'm proud of or tie my identity to. I agree that guns and gun culture are gross. I have a lot of friends who the kind of gross, dangerous people who like guns want to kill. I want them to be able to protect themselves. I don't like that that's the world we live in, but pretending otherwise won't keep people safe. There are already a lot of places in this country where marginalized people can "disappear" without anyone batting an eye, and it's not getting better. I live in one of them. 

I readily admit I don't know what the solution to gun violence is. It brings me no joy to say that I can't see any choices that don't entail more violence one way or another. I've chosen to settle for wanting queers, black trans folks, indigenous women, etc to be able to protect themselves from the violent fascists who already have arsenals and the decrepit society which gave birth to them. It's not a coincidence that gun control has always targeted the same groups that violent fascists can't wait to start killing (and already are).

It's difficult for me to reconcile all of that with school shootings. I work in public schools. I work with at-risk youth, exactly the kinds of kids who come back around and shoot the place up. Shit hits close to home. It terrifies me and breaks my heart. I wish I had better answers. I live with the contradiction because I honestly don't think there is a solution. I wish I did, but I just keep coming back to the same terrible answers.

I should be less flippant in talking about this in the future. This is serious stuff, none of this nuance was present in my post, and for that I apologize.


----------



## odibrom (Nov 1, 2022)

@wheresthefbomb buy a bullet proof vest instead. When one buys a gun, one also buys the opportunity to loose it and for a shit head to grab it. It's one more gun available in the streets. Start buy getting protection like a bullet proof vest, not a weapon like a gun.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 1, 2022)

odibrom said:


> @wheresthefbomb buy a bullet proof vest instead. When one buys a gun, one also buys the opportunity to loose it and for a shit head to grab it. It's one more gun available in the streets. Start buy getting protection like a bullet proof vest, not a weapon like a gun.


This is the USA, where there's sometimes* more red tape around buying body armor than there is a round buying a weapon.

Turns out that the cops want to be able to "accidentally" pull their service weapon rather than their tazer, and they want you to die, not simply get a bruised rib. If they have to wait for you to pull into the gas station so that they can douse you with fuel to make sure you turn into a charred corpse when they taze you, it makes them quite irate, because it's a waste of police time when they could be fragging all sorts of other innocent people instead of waiting for just the right timing to deal with mr. "I don't want to be murdered."

*depends on which state

EDIT: For example - I'm struggling to find the news article, but a cop the other day was responding to a single vehicle crash. When his partner warned him that the telephone pole that a car had crashed into was potentially going to fall down and hurt someone, the officer drew his weapon and fired two rounds at the vehicle (which was unoccupied at the time). Neither of the bullets struck the vehicle, and no one was hurt. Evidently, the officer who fired the shots misunderstood what his partner had told him, err, umm, something. But that's what the policy of "qualified immunity" has led to here. When there is no consequence for incompetence, you end up with cops literally shooting at nothing for no reason.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 1, 2022)

bostjan said:


> When his partner warned him that the telephone pole that a car had crashed into was potentially going to fall down and hurt someone, the officer drew his weapon and fired two rounds at the vehicle (which was unoccupied at the time).


The sad part is that I _genuinely_ can't tell if this is satire. It seems way too stupid to be true by a wide margin, but then again, that would just make it item #486729 on the list of things cops have done that are too stupid to be true but they did anyway.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 1, 2022)

Xaios said:


> The sad part is that I _genuinely_ can't tell if this is satire. It seems way too stupid to be true by a wide margin, but then again, that would just make it item #486729 on the list of things cops have done that are too stupid to be true but they did anyway.


Nope, no satire...

I found it: https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-ra...rom-pole-snapping-no-charges-to-be-filed.html

So the judge ruled that "Where circumstances present a person with reasonable cause to believe he is in danger, he may respond, even if his belief is later shown to have been mistaken" - I think the judge is also incompetent, because, what reasonable person would believe that shooting at an unoccupied vehicle would stop a utility pole from falling on them?

Life has become satire. Pretty soon, the Onion will contain only reasonable stories, and we'll all laugh at how unrelatable those are, whilst we read about how the president of the USA tried to flush a bunch of paper documents that are all backed up digitally anyway, or how he'll promise to prosecute some woman for having her own private email server, just to turn around and install his own private email server himself, or we will read real stories about how people are shooting each other over too much mayo on their sandwiches, or about how people spitting on other people will be shocked when they get charged with assault because a deadly virus is going around...


----------



## Xaios (Nov 1, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Nope, no satire...
> 
> I found it: https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-ra...rom-pole-snapping-no-charges-to-be-filed.html


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 1, 2022)

odibrom said:


> @wheresthefbomb buy a bullet proof vest instead. When one buys a gun, one also buys the opportunity to loose it and for a shit head to grab it. It's one more gun available in the streets. Start buy getting protection like a bullet proof vest, not a weapon like a gun.



Mine was an inheritance. I Sadly, though, a bullet-proof vest simply does not offer the kind of proactive protection a gun does. 

I am operating from the assumption that we are very close to roving gangs of armed fascists killing people and taking their stuff. Marginalized people are already killed with impunity many places in the US, AK being one of them as I mentioned. That's not the kind of thing a person wants to wait around for, and not the kind of thing a person ultimately defends themselves from with body armor alone. 

I respect where you're coming from, but it doesn't address the daily reality a lot of marginalized people face. To directly quote my queer friend living in OK, "I want guns because the people who want to kill me have guns." Body armor doesn't solve that.


----------



## nightflameauto (Nov 1, 2022)

bostjan said:


> This is the USA, where there's sometimes* more red tape around buying body armor than there is a round buying a weapon.
> 
> Turns out that the cops want to be able to "accidentally" pull their service weapon rather than their tazer, and they want you to die, not simply get a bruised rib. If they have to wait for you to pull into the gas station so that they can douse you with fuel to make sure you turn into a charred corpse when they taze you, it makes them quite irate, because it's a waste of police time when they could be fragging all sorts of other innocent people instead of waiting for just the right timing to deal with mr. "I don't want to be murdered."
> 
> ...


He was aiming at the pole to show it who's boss. He just had really bad aim.

Honestly, this sort of shit is getting way too common. Are we actually living in a machine where the owner is tweaking the absurdity knob up until the automatons, us, finally rise up in revolt? Or just flat out give up?


----------



## odibrom (Nov 1, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> Mine was an inheritance. I Sadly, though, a bullet-proof vest simply does not offer the kind of proactive protection a gun does.
> 
> I am operating from the assumption that we are very close to roving gangs of armed fascists killing people and taking their stuff. Marginalized people are already killed with impunity many places in the US, AK being one of them as I mentioned. That's not the kind of thing a person wants to wait around for, and not the kind of thing a person ultimately defends themselves from with body armor alone.
> 
> I respect where you're coming from, but it doesn't address the daily reality a lot of marginalized people face. To directly quote my queer friend living in OK, "I want guns because the people who want to kill me have guns." Body armor doesn't solve that.


I can understand that perspective, but I'd never choose a gun over a bullet proof vest... that is with my present and so far experience... Violence only generates more violence, it changes nothing... but EDUCATION is key...


----------



## Drew (Nov 1, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> I respect where you're coming from, but it doesn't address the daily reality a lot of marginalized people face. To directly quote my queer friend living in OK, "I want guns because the people who want to kill me have guns." Body armor doesn't solve that.


I mean, I'm reasonably opposed to the private ownership of firearms by civilians, and strongly opposed to private ownership with no licensing or other forms of controls on ownership.

But, there certainly does come a point when you have to start to consider it, your own moral opposition notwithstanding, just so if it does come to armed conflict in the streets, its not just one side of the political spectrum that's armed. A Trump win in 2024, and if I stay in the country, I'm probably arming up before 2028 since there's no way in hell he doesn't go for a third term if he's still alive and not in jail.


----------



## Drew (Nov 1, 2022)

odibrom said:


> I can understand that perspective, but I'd never choose a gun over a bullet proof vest... that is with my present and so far experience... Violence only generates more violence, it changes nothing... but EDUCATION is key...


The other thing worth considering here, is a bullet proof vest is designed to stop handgun fire. It's not going to stop high-muzzle-velocity fire from an AR15 or similar.


----------



## odibrom (Nov 1, 2022)

Drew said:


> The other thing worth considering here, is a bullet proof vest is designed to stop handgun fire. It's not going to stop high-muzzle-velocity fire from an AR15 or similar.


 Those details are beyond my knowledge, nevertheless, bullet proof vests will surely at least slow down those bullets and eventually prevent a deathly wound. You guys are describing the problem like you are in war-zones... which doesn't seems to be that far off.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 1, 2022)

odibrom said:


> You guys are describing the problem like you are in war-zones... which doesn't seems to be that far off.



Believe me, I wish I could find a way to believe otherwise. 

I'd actually be 100% okay with Biden "coming for muh guns" if I had any reasonable assurance that he could come for absolutely everyone's guns, and completely suspend the ability to make/acquire more guns. Throw it all into the sun Superman IV style.


----------



## Grindspine (Nov 1, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> @Grindspine Max has it right, but you can certainly be forgiven for interpreting my lack of context as you did.
> 
> I didn't grow up with guns either. I own one but it's not something I'm proud of or tie my identity to. I agree that guns and gun culture are gross. I have a lot of friends who the kind of gross, dangerous people who like guns want to kill. I want them to be able to protect themselves. I don't like that that's the world we live in, but pretending otherwise won't keep people safe. There are already a lot of places in this country where marginalized people can "disappear" without anyone batting an eye, and it's not getting better. I live in one of them.
> 
> ...


@wheresthefbomb Thank you for sharing. That context makes a lot more sense for your outlook.

It may be a comedy piece, but I think that one solution stands above the rest;







Of course, the rich would still be better off than the poor. However, make the bullet tax massive. Because we all know rich people hate taxes!


----------



## Drew (Nov 2, 2022)

odibrom said:


> Those details are beyond my knowledge, nevertheless, bullet proof vests will surely at least slow down those bullets and eventually prevent a deathly wound. You guys are describing the problem like you are in war-zones... which doesn't seems to be that far off.


Not enough to prevent death - a round from an AR15 travels at about 3x the velocity, with about 3x the kinetic energy on impact, vs a 9mm. If this sounds like a war zone, it's because it basically is.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 2, 2022)

odibrom said:


> Those details are beyond my knowledge, nevertheless, bullet proof vests will surely at least slow down those bullets and eventually prevent a deathly wound. You guys are describing the problem like you are in war-zones... which doesn't seems to be that far off.


There is a shooting in my neighborhood literally every single day. 16 shots were fired about a football toss from the elementary school down the block. People don't even call the cops anymore.

They put up these big police cameras on every other corner that are supposed to be able to "pinpoint a gunshot" within 2000 feet of it, but they do absolutely nothing. 

A family was gunned down in their living room, mother hit in face, father hit in chest while holding his infant daughter, father died instantly. The police found a dead 17 year old kid in their front yard that had been drive by'd and they were just casualties in a war no one wants to do anything about.

Don't even get me started on my Father in Law's neighborhood 40 minutes north of me in Detroit. 

There are 2 Americas.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 2, 2022)

Grindspine said:


> Just to be difficult, I am opposed to your being opposed to gun control legislation.
> 
> I have seen too much to be okay with guns. Bullet wounds are gross. Maybe I have that feeling because I have seen the physical trauma and emotional trauma guns create. I have never been on the trigger end. Maybe if I grew up holding guns and feeling all powerful, I would like them, but that isn't the case.
> 
> People who like guns are kinda gross too.


I didn't grow up with guns at all, but as a child I've always thought airsoft, paintball, nerf, and water guns were cool/entertaining. I don't think it's fair to say people who like guns are gross.

There is certainly a gross culture around those who are overboard with their enthusiasm with guns, but it's not inherently the people. I have many friends who are into guns, but are amazing people who would go out of their way to help others and wouldn't hurt a fly. I don't see the appeal of owning 30 pistols and semi-automatic assault rifles, but who am I to judge? I understand the appeal of generalizations, but you should consider where it comes from.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 2, 2022)

Drew said:


> Not enough to prevent death - a round from an AR15 travels at about 3x the velocity, with about 3x the kinetic energy on impact, vs a 9mm. If this sounds like a war zone, it's because it basically is.


Well, it depends on what you mean by "bullet-proof vest." Body armor comes in different weights and grades. Something capable of stopping a .223 would be like 15+ pounds. You're talking a vest that looks a lot more like what the military wears than what the police wear on a daily basis. Y'know?

We could, theoretically, all go around wearing full plate armor all of the time, you know, just in case someone tries to shoot or stab us, but then we'd be much more likely to die from heatstroke on a mildly hot day...

It's all about checks and balances.


----------



## Drew (Nov 2, 2022)

bostjan said:


> Well, it depends on what you mean by "bullet-proof vest." Body armor comes in different weights and grades. Something capable of stopping a .223 would be like 15+ pounds. You're talking a vest that looks a lot more like what the military wears than what the police wear on a daily basis. Y'know?
> 
> We could, theoretically, all go around wearing full plate armor all of the time, you know, just in case someone tries to shoot or stab us, but then we'd be much more likely to die from heatstroke on a mildly hot day...
> 
> It's all about checks and balances.


Yeah, I guess that's fair - it's almost certaiily possible to design body armor to stop a bullet from an AR15. It's just going to make you look like a SWAT team, and probably won't stop you from having most of your bicep ripped off by a bullet if the shooter misses your torso (or, aims for and hits your arm).


----------



## bostjan (Nov 2, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> There is a shooting in my neighborhood literally every single day. 16 shots were fired about a football toss from the elementary school down the block. People don't even call the cops anymore.
> 
> They put up these big police cameras on every other corner that are supposed to be able to "pinpoint a gunshot" within 2000 feet of it, but they do absolutely nothing.
> 
> ...


I grew up in Detroit. If you ever want to police to come out, don't tell them someone is being murdered, just tell them your neighbour is repaving the sidewalk in front of his house or whatever, and the cops will show up to give him a ticket within 3 minutes. The only caveat is that they might step over the murder in progress in order to serve the ticket and then just drive away.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 2, 2022)

Drew said:


> Yeah, I guess that's fair - it's almost certaiily possible to design body armor to stop a bullet from an AR15. It's just going to make you look like a SWAT team, and probably won't stop you from having most of your bicep ripped off by a bullet if the shooter misses your torso (or, aims for and hits your arm).


----------



## TedEH (Nov 2, 2022)

/wrists said:


> it's not inherently the people


There's certainly a distinction to be made between "the culture around guns is bad" and "the people who participate in the culture surrounding guns are bad".

I know a number of people who are very enthusiastic about guns, and their history, and different models and parts, and going to ranges to shoot, etc. - but who feel very strongly about needing much stricter gun control. I've also met some people who know nothing about them and are mostly scared of them but would still rather everyone with working hands be armed to the teeth just in case. But there's of course every and all combinations of attitudes in between those.

While there's a fair bit of overlap between gun enthusiasm and poor gun-related attitudes, it's not just 1-to-1.



/wrists said:


> who am I to judge?


Well, consider that the conversation turned to comparisons of body armour. It seems entirely reasonable to me to judge any system that puts you in a position of needing to consider body armour.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 2, 2022)

I saw a video pretty recently, I want to say it was in Detroit, but I'm also pretty sure it was Chicago. A cell phone video from inside a car with some people in it, a cop pulls up in front of the moving car to attempt to stop them. The passenger side character pulls out two long magazine bearing glocks and smacks the barrels together with a "click click" at the cops while they were opening the door. Within a second or two the cops were slamming the car door and skirting off with a "nothing to see here, Johnson, did you see anything?" "Nope, nothing to see here".

They were fucking kids. Scaring off police with glocks. Terrifying.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 2, 2022)

We had two active shooter reports at two different high schools in Alaska today within half an hour of each other, one that I used to work at. '''Fortunately,''' they both turned out to be pranks. What the fuck though?


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 2, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> We had two active shooter reports at two different high schools in Alaska today within half an hour of each other, one that I used to work at. '''Fortunately,''' they both turned out to be pranks. What the fuck though?


Oh so fucking funny, just hilarious. Y'all got pranked sooooo hard! OWNED, idiots.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 2, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> We had two active shooter reports at two different high schools in Alaska today within half an hour of each other, one that I used to work at. '''Fortunately,''' they both turned out to be pranks. What the fuck though?



Social experiment to see how people would react


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 3, 2022)

/wrists said:


> Asshole experiment to see how big of a shithead piece of shit they can be.


FTFY


----------



## Drew (Nov 3, 2022)

CanserDYI said:


> Asshole experiment to see the law enforcement response firsthand to prepare for a future live threat.


FTFY, I'm afraid.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 3, 2022)

In my day kids would just pull the fire alarm. I guess that's not edgy enough anymore though.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 3, 2022)

Take a trip back through time with me. It's the early 2000's, and I'm working in the sub-basement of the university science building. Beautiful late summer morning - everything is pretty quiet until I pop _Scenes from a Memory_ into my boom box and get to work. I lose track of time, and it's after lunch. My stomach is rumbling and I'm thinking maybe I should head out and pick up some delicious Lebanese food, but when I head upstairs, no one is there. Weird, it's a Tuesday and usually the lecture halls are bustling in the afternoon. Then I get to the door and it's chained shut from the outside. Guess I'm not going anywhere. This was before I had a cellphone (actually I technically did, but it was what you'd call a "carphone," so it did me no good unless I was in my car). Eventually a campus security guard found me and let me out- there had been a bomb threat on campus that morning, and then around the same time, there was a horrible attack on New York City, so they took it very seriously and locked the building down; they just didn't think to notify the people working in the subbasement.

No bomb was ever found on campus. Why was a bomb threat called in? What was the purpose? Did the person who called in the threat have some connection with what happened on the east coast that same day?

I'll never know the answers to these questions. But, people are capable of some really terrible acts.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 3, 2022)

Update on the hoax situation, according to local LEOs they had a lot of parents arriving at the building as well as many calling in and saying they were going to go there with their own weapons. This was also the sentiment expressed by the adults I was directly working with at a school across town when we found out.

That attitude is definitely in part a reflection of amerikan gun culture, but also, I live in AK where many people have guns for hunting and protection in the wild. I think it's also important to acknowledge the deep lack of faith in LEOs that the events at Parkland have caused. The response here was pretty robust by all accounts, even though it was a hoax.

Rationality of breaking into an active shooter situation as an armed civilian aside, I have a hard time blaming parents for worrying that the cops might just hide behind the bushes (or snow banks in this case) while their kids get clapped.

Edit: Also, the current narrative is that both events were very likely the same caller, who reportedly did not sound like a teenager, but an adult man with a "thick accent," whatever that means.


----------



## MFB (Nov 3, 2022)

wheresthefbomb said:


> but an adult man with a "thick accent," whatever that means.



read as: not white


----------



## Drew (Nov 4, 2022)

MFB said:


> read as: not white


Thick accent and a gun? Please. It was a Texan.


----------



## MFB (Nov 4, 2022)

Drew said:


> Thick accent and a gun? Please. It was a Texan.



My first instinct was, "That would mean a Texan actually LEFT Texas!" but then I remembered phones can call out of state


----------

