{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/28/2013 9:48:00 PM
33
A Bushmaster AR-15 is not an assault rifle, nor is it "military style" (which is another made-up term similar to "assault weapon" which categorises arms based on how scary they look).
English
-
It is "Military Style." I agree with everything else you said, but there are very few things that separate the M-16 and the AR-15. The catch is that just because something is "military style" does not mean it is by definition more deadly. 9mm's are "military style" as are mossberg shotguns.
-
I listened to a firearms expert who trained people on CNN make a pretty good argument on why ARs are the most efficient, widely available gun for killing. And he was pro gun btw, arguing in favor of ARs. He basically said that when the adrenaline is flowing, the ergonomics of the AR made for the easiest gun to aim when compared to shotguns, handguns, or other rifles. Eventually this country banned fully automatic guns not because they were necessarily used in a lot of homicides compared to handguns, but because they were extremely effective at killing many people in a short amount of time.
-
And? A pistol, shot gun or even a knife can be deadly. Hell, a dodge van can be. The problem isn't the deadliest firearm. The problem is whatever is driving young men to become rampage killers. If you treat a disease, you can ease the symptoms or cure it. I would prefer a cure.
-
You can't treat the disease of violence in America. Even the gun advocates would agree with me there. That's the main reason I hear for people owning guns: protection from other people with guns.
-
[quote]You can't treat the disease of violence in America.[/quote]Sure you can. Start by not plastering the killer's name across every headline in the nation. Most of these spree killers are mentally ill and suicidal, and instead of just hanging themselves they decide to go on rampages in order to gain fame, attention, and immortality. And what does the media do? Gobble it up like Sasha Grey. If I recall correctly, Britain saw a decline in spree killings after the media outlets adopted a policy of never publicising the killers' names.
-
There's [url=http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml]no evidence [/url]of this. Or, to put it another way, there's exactly as much evidence that Bushmaster rifles turn people into killers as there is of those killers wanting fame or attention. The news can do what it wants, it won't make a difference. However, all is not lost: [quote] In addition, prior to most shootings other kids knew the shooting was to occur - but did not alert an adult. Very few of the attackers, however, ever directed threats to their targets before the attack. The study findings also revealed that there is no "profile" of a school shooter; instead, the students who carried out the attacks differed from one another in numerous ways. However, almost every attacker had engaged in behavior before the shooting that seriously concerned at least one adult - and for many had concerned three or more different adults. [/quote]
-
[quote]There's [url=http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml]no evidence [/url]of this. Or, to put it another way, there's exactly as much evidence that Bushmaster rifles turn people into killers as there is of those killers wanting fame or attention. [/quote]In just about every major school shooting, the perpetrator has been someone who was depressed, socially isolated, and felt ignored by his peers. They made manifestos or videos that demonstrated some sort of desire for recognition and lasting impact (the VT killer considered himself a martyr on par with Jesus).
-
Some of them did. But others didn't. There's no consistency there, and no causal relationship established. You can't use logic that applies to normal people when you're talking about people who are ill enough to commit a mass killing. If someone considers themselves a martyr, not giving them attention won't stop them because they think that they will be rewarded in some sort of afterlife. It would take a great deal of drugs and other treatments to help them. The relationship between media attention and mass killings is the same as the relationship between the Bushmaster rifle and mass killings.
-
Then why is this guy spot-on when describing how mass media coverage results in copycat crimes?
-
Again, that's not evidence of a causal relationship. The psychiatrist is simply giving his hypothesis based on what he sees... much like the OP is doing. He didn't describe how mass media coverage results in copycat crimes at all. The attention given to mass shootings could simply lead to other shootings being reported more. And it also begs the question, do you think that violent video games or movies cause this type of violence as well?
-
[quote]Again, that's not evidence of a causal relationship. The psychiatrist is simply giving his hypothesis based on what he sees... much like the OP is doing.[/quote]He's an experienced forensic psychiatrist that has studied these shootings for years. I put far more weight into his argument then the OP's half-assed 10 minute thread. But since I can't find the study I read that supports that position, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
The study that I posted earlier was done by many experienced forensic psychologists. And it was an actual study, not merely a hypothesis. You're not just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the evidence. Or rather, the lack of any evidence.
-
[quote]Most attackers had difficulty coping with significant losses or personal failures. Moreover, many had considered or attempted suicide. Many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others prior to the attack.[/quote][quote]Almost three-quarters of the attackers felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by others prior to the incident (71percent, n=29). In several cases, individual attackers had experienced bullying and harassment that was long-standing and severe. In some of these cases the experience of being bullied seemed to have a significant impact on the attacker and appeared to have been a factor in his decision to mount an attack at the school.[/quote][quote]Although most attackers had not received a formal mental health evaluation or diagnosis, most attackers exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts at some point prior to their attack (78 percent, n=32). More than half of the attackers had a documented history of feeling extremely depressed or desperate (61 percent, n=25).[/quote] All of these quotes support my position.
-
How are those quotes evidence that media coverage factors into the killers' decisions? Those quotes show that bullying and depression factor into the killers' decisions. And again, do you think that other forms of media that glorify violence have any effect on this?
-
[quote]How are those quotes evidence that media coverage factors into the killers' decisions? Those quotes show that bullying and depression factor into the killers' decisions.[/quote]Which was half of my argument:[quote]In just about every major school shooting, the perpetrator has been someone who was depressed, socially isolated, and felt ignored by his peers.[/quote] [quote]And again, do you think that other forms of media that glorify violence have any effect on this?[/quote]Not really, at least not at the level that media glorification encourages these psychos to kill. You can argue that media glorification doesn't affect all mass shootings, but it certainly affected Sandy Hook. The killer made spreadsheets tracking previous mass killings and wanted to top them with even more deaths. He also felt neglected by his mother, and wanted to get everyone's attention by killer her and shooting up the school that she worked at.
-
The killer could have made those spreadsheets using a simple news report. Whether those reports were "glorified" wouldn't make a difference. Let me put it another way. Right now, I could say that "if the type of rifle that the shooter used were banned, then he might not have been able to get it. He would then have to use another type of weapon, which might have lead him to not do what he did". But I'm not arguing that, because I have no evidence to support it.
-
[quote]The killer could have made those spreadsheets using a simple news report. Whether those reports were "glorified" wouldn't make a difference. [/quote]The fact that the news glorifies mass killings is the reason that the numbers matter to begin with. Having the deadliest or second-deadliest or top-ten-tier shooting in history doesn't mean anything if nobody reports it.
-
It also doesn't mean anything to a dead body, but most mass shooters kill themselves along with their targets.
-
Yes, just like suicide is often a cry for attention, so too are mass shootings. And you've brought this full-circle back to my point about martyrdom. They felt like nobodies in life, but they want to be infamous in death.
-
I 9001% agree with this. Stop making them super villains!
-
When did they do this? Was this a law that was passed or did all the media outlets get together and just decide to not publish the names?
-
Can't remember; I just vaguely recall reading about that policy right when Sandy Hook happened. I think it was a voluntary thing one did and the others followed suit, but don't quote me on that.
-
[quote]Can't remember; I just vaguely recall reading about that policy right when Sandy Hook happened. I think it was a voluntary thing one did and the others followed suit,[/quote] [quote]but don't quote me on that.[/quote]Get quoted.
-
Dutchy's gonna Dutch
-
Don't hate.
