In article , says...

On 12/18/2012 8:43 AM, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:



MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,







Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...







It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.







Cite?



http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381



That is "mass shootings" only, dip.

Which is the context of the current discussion.


Well, until you prove loogie wrong, then the context will change...again.

Well, there you go, back to nonsense....

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.

The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are
already dead by your own hand?

===

Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture.

On 12/18/2012 10:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.

The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are
already dead by your own hand?

===

Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture.


Yeah, and in some of these cases like the Movie Theater shooter I can
see it, he sprayed everything trying to make chaos... This guy in CT was
different. He was not thinking of "chaos", he was thinking straight up
killing one, then the next, then the next... With an average of 3-11
shots into each child and each and every one, dead. He stayed on each
child until he was sure they were dead and moved on to the next. In a
"chaos" situation, I think it would be more likely some of the kids
might have survived as he moved along quickly to create as much chaos as
possible over as wide an area as possible... I liken this kid to a knife
attack. A few pokes means he wanted to murder you, 15 stab wounds says
he hates you and is in a rage...

On 12/18/12 11:15 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/18/2012 10:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:42:00 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.

The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are
already dead by your own hand?

===

Some sort of perverse "legacy" fame is what I would conjecture.


Yeah, and in some of these cases like the Movie Theater shooter I can
see it, he sprayed everything trying to make chaos... This guy in CT was
different. He was not thinking of "chaos", he was thinking straight up
killing one, then the next, then the next... With an average of 3-11
shots into each child and each and every one, dead. He stayed on each
child until he was sure they were dead and moved on to the next. In a
"chaos" situation, I think it would be more likely some of the kids
might have survived as he moved along quickly to create as much chaos as
possible over as wide an area as possible... I liken this kid to a knife
attack. A few pokes means he wanted to murder you, 15 stab wounds says
he hates you and is in a rage...



"Perverse legacy fame..."

"He was not thinking of chaos..."


Psychobabble from two mooks who haven't a clue.

On 12/18/12 12:01 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:47:07 -0500, ESAD wrote:

Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light
on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on
these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete
evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and
heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved.
Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia.




We have a culture of violence. We were started in a revolution where
we threw out all of the rules of "civilized warfare", our most bloody
war was amongst ourselves and the rest of the world uses us as their
enforcer/hit man.
You really just have to look to the media to see the model for these
shootings. What passes for news and entertainment (which is only
separated by a blurry line) all you see is mass killing of one kind or
another. The public seems to be drawn to it and the media outlets are
more than happy to oblige.
The biggest news story last year was the cold blooded murder of Osama
Bin Laden. I agree he needed killing but it was still a "hit" worthy
of Al Capone or Pablo Escobar.

We love bomb camera and drone strike videos even when a bunch of kids
are "collateral damage".
.
It is not shocking that a disturbed individual thinks the best way to
be somebody is to kill a lot of people. The more shocking the victims,
the bigger splash you get.


Once again, you are just extending the psychobabble. What evidence do
you have that the Connecticut shooter wanted to "be somebody"?

On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:43:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill
others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that
notoriety or not.

He knew, if he killed enough people, he would be the only thing on TV
for a month.


psychobabble

In article ,
says...

On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:43:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill
others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that
notoriety or not.

He knew, if he killed enough people, he would be the only thing on TV
for a month.


psychobabble

Rational people attribute rationality to pyschos.
But that's not rational!

On 12/18/12 12:47 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 12/18/12 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:43:21 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill
others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that
notoriety or not.

He knew, if he killed enough people, he would be the only thing on TV
for a month.


psychobabble

Rational people attribute rationality to pyschos.
But that's not rational!



We don't know anything about the mindset of the Newtown shooter.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee,
then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do
we do about the 100's of thousands of others?

100s of thousands?

Cite that

No problem!!

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm



If we really wanted to make a dent in violent death we would end the
drug war.

That would certainly make a dent. Fact remains, some 90% of gun crimes
were committed with a gun that someone either stole or "borrowed" from a
legal owner.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:01:34 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:55:56 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



So in your narrow mind, the only gun violence is "mass shootings"?? Gee,

then we have a really low number of gun violence incidences, but what do

we do about the 100's of thousands of others?



100s of thousands?



Cite that



No problem!!



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm

From that site:

"Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993."

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those posessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

- a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
- a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
- family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

Where's that 90% you claim are stolen? No cite for that?


http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-...ce/welcome.htm

Funny, if you drill down on this data, it separates deaths by handgun and "other guns". Since assault rifles aren't handguns, we must include them in with rifles and shotguns in "other guns". And the data shows not only that handgun deaths occur at around 4X the rate as all "other guns" combined, but also that the rate of deaths for all types have reduced sharply since the '90s, which is exactly what I quoted in another thread.

Even more interesting is that the "other guns" death rate number roughly equals "knife" in deaths. JPS, pay attention.

Thanks for not reading or understanding your own links enough to realize they don't support your statements at all.