Mall shooters
So there was another Mall shooting over here yesterday. Another 'pained' teen shot up the mall and killed 8(?) peeps.
Bring back the cane I say..there is talk here of making it illegal for parents to spank their kids even!
These little bastards just need a damn good thrashing and take away their computers/phones/mp3 players....whiney emo spoilt brats most of em that don't know how good they have it.
On a different note...you know I never understood how these mall shooters only manage to get 5-10 people....seriously...xmas shoppers and you only get 8 in a full Mall?!
Bring back the cane I say..there is talk here of making it illegal for parents to spank their kids even!
These little bastards just need a damn good thrashing and take away their computers/phones/mp3 players....whiney emo spoilt brats most of em that don't know how good they have it.
On a different note...you know I never understood how these mall shooters only manage to get 5-10 people....seriously...xmas shoppers and you only get 8 in a full Mall?!
Post edited by beanz on
Comments
She should have got the first bullet in the head me thinks.
I had this chat with my mate once, i know it sounds sick and of course i'm NEVER going to do anything like that but yeah when someone goes on a gun rampage i'm stunned there arent more casualties (thankfully).
I saw the picture of the kid, usual drip with all the 'people dont understand me' rubbish so he thinks its okay to go on a shooting spree so that hes famous when hes dead, piece of crap.
Just terrible when they commit suicide, i think they should be tortured for years on end.
They practiced online with an aimbot.
Thats the answer!!! :D
Unless you're a skilled marksman, it's quite difficult to actually shoot someone dead at range - there's a fairly small target area you have to hit.
Also, an SKS off a balcony isn't going to be like standing in the middle of the most crowded bit with a machine pistol like a MAC-10 and spraying 30 rounds at high speed into the crowd. The SKS has only a 10 round magazine, and it's semi-automatic, so the perp is going to have to aim-shoot-aim-shoot through the iron sight, and then spend some time reloading. By which time, hopefully people have had a chance to take some cover.
So actually, 8 dead and 5 wounded is probably quite a high hit rate. The news didn't say how much ammo he had or how many rounds he fired.
At the food court, movie theater line, a line waiting to pay or any high traffic area...still seems low to me. It would take 10-15 mins at least I bet for any major armed response to show up in which time you should have plenty of time to find more targets.
Bad planning on the psycho's part I think!
Edit: Oh the news said witnesses reported 30-50 shots.
Watched too many movies I guess.
Maybe he was selecting his victims based on some weird whim.
Hmmm... I've just had an idea for my entry for the Crap Games Compo...
Already been done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_(computer_game))
I guess that even if you are some arsehole-psycho-emo kid, it's still actually pretty hard to point the gun and pull the trigger like The Terminator.
Hear hear!!! Or a Long Walk like Stephen King describes..... :)
Suppose its an 'american' thing as it doesnt seem to be as popular over here.
once i saw someone selling an ack-ack gun in the paper, it was about 800 quid. now thats what i call home defence.
as far as self defence goes. i'd go for 10lbs of semtex strapped to my chest, so the next time some punk tries getting my wallet i take him and everyone out in a 40 bloack radius, predator style, nice!
The film Unforgiven rams that point home pretty hard. I think Clint says something like "it's hard to point a gun at a man and rob him of everything he's got." For all The Schofield Kids bravado, once he does finally kill a man it sends him into despair.
That's an interesting theory. I'd question his notion that there's an "inate" instinct in humans not to kill - history pretty much makes a mockery of that, especially the massacres carried out pretty much for the hell of it during the ancient and medieval periods. I think the reason for these findings are more complex. First, unlike centuries ago, the vast majority of people have never killed and are never likely to so it's something alien and therefore frightening to us. Also, due to our being social animals, most humans have some sense of empathy with other humans and combined with our high intelligence makes it easy to put ourselves in the other person's position. I also think that humans are more likely to kill when they feel threatened and I think that's why soldiers in WWII found it harder to kill than they would have in, say 1450, because the enemy were rarely very close to them and so their instinct was probably that this person wasn't a genuine threat even though their intellect knew they where.
It's also important to factor in upbringing. The vast majority of people are brought up to find killing abhorrent then and now and so when asked to do it in the service of their country it doesn't suddenly become easy.
I think your right about us being disconnected from it now (at least us 'Westerners'). I've read a few serial killer books where they say that killing becomes easy after the first one or 2.
Then you see those stories from Africa and the like where 14yr old boys have been raised to kill and are army veterans etc at that age.
Still even those people usually have 'reason' to kill. Mall shooters and School shooters really don't apart from the 'fame' element.
Not wanting to blame popular culture but the question has to be asked if 'fame' was not so widely pushed as the ultimate accolade would any of these shootings happen.
Okay..... well, this guy, takes the biscuit then
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1166&id=643752004
Severloh was safe in an almost impregnable concrete bunker overlooking the beach. He had an unimpeded view of the oncoming Allied forces. He was the last German soldier firing, and may have accounted for about 3,000 American casualties, almost three-quarters of all the US losses at Omaha. The Americans came to know him as the Beast of Omaha.
It disturbs me that the young of today do not see fame, success and acheivement as mutually exclusive attributes. The media is much to blame for this view I think.
The way I see it is that falure is only temporary transitory state. The only way not to fail is to keep trying. Hard work, and a positive mental atitude is are the largest factors of success and acheivement.
I would say the vast majority in past centuries never killed, as well; in most periods of history, at least. The exception would be when periods of more intense warfare required a mass-drafting of peasants into the army.
I think that's most probably the real reason. The self-preservation impulse of humans makes it much more likely that you'll kill to defend yourself if your enemy is right in front of your face. Not only that, but weapons in the past were far more limited in their destructive power. People would find it easier to contemplate gutting a single person with a sword than machine-gunning down hundreds of troops at a time.
Plus life was cheap in the past. Premature death was much more common so people were used to it. It's not going to be so much of a problem killing someone if it's likely that they're just going to die from the black death in a year's time anyway. Plus the influence of the mass media today conditions us to think about warfare and death in a certain way, as a result of the sheer destruction of the world wars.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can be famous, successful and have achievements all at the same time. Indeed, you can have zero or more of those three attributes.
Maybe I was choosing the wrong words, but what I mean is that the young think that success and acheivement is explicably linked with fame. I.E. In their eys to not be famous is to not have succeeded.