Who are the shooters?

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:10 am

The media tends to side against individual liberty with gun rights and do a pretty good job of painting the opposition in a different and evil light. However, we need to keep this type of info buried. We need to paint legal gun owners and the gun manufacturers as the villains.

This type of imagery and information does not help gun control advocates and needs to be stomped out. This doesn't help!

Unfortunately, each of these is easily validated with a quick Google search.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:15 am

And you say you voted for Obama, not once, but twice. Square peg, round hole. But if you say so, I'll believe you. I know you so well after all.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:16 am

AnneBoleyn;1417293 wrote: And you say you voted for Obama, not once, but twice. Square peg, round hole. But if you say so, I'll believe you. I know you so well after all.

Why presume something about me? This is not a thread about me. You disregard the thread to come and attack me with an accusation?

Why would you do that?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:19 am

Why do you always feel you are being attacked? I swear I am not attacking you. I am not presuming you voted for Obama twice, that information came directly from you. I find the information you presented here to be very interesting.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:26 am

AnneBoleyn;1417296 wrote: Why do you always feel you are being attacked? I swear I am not attacking you. I am not presuming you voted for Obama twice, that information came directly from you. I find the information you presented here to be very interesting.

Just responding to what you wrote. "Square peg, round hole. But if you say so, I'll believe you. I know you so well after all."

Did I take this to mean you thought the post was both very informative and disappointing and to thank me for posting? If so, my comment on an "attack" was completely out of line and I stand in humble apology for "attacking".

You are quite welcome.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:28 am

You're looking too deeply into stuff. You're looking to be offended. Shake the dust from your feet and move on please. I mean you no harm.

eta--I do commend you for posting & I do find you informative, & I am more than glad to make your acquaintance.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:33 am

AnneBoleyn;1417299 wrote: You're looking too deeply into stuff. You're looking to be offended. Shake the dust from your feet and move on please. I mean you no harm.

eta--I do commend you for posting & I do find you informative, & I am more than glad to make your acquaintance.

It is a sensitive society and abiding by politically-correct "rules" day in and day out can be difficult. As many Americans, we are all becoming a bit "victimized" in our own little "groups" and this serves to further divide.

It is a shame.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:35 am

Political correctness & I have not become fast friends. We've met but we don't like each other.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:40 am

halfway;1417291 wrote: The media tends to side against individual liberty with gun rights and do a pretty good job of painting the opposition in a different and evil light. However, we need to keep this type of info buried. We need to paint legal gun owners and the gun manufacturers as the villains.

This type of imagery and information does not help gun control advocates and needs to be stomped out. This doesn't help!

Unfortunately, each of these is easily validated with a quick Google search.

Didn't they all get their weapons legally, or at least stole them from their own homes where family members had gotten them legally? That kind of helps the anti-gun argument & damages yours, doesn't it?

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:51 pm

Accountable;1417307 wrote: Didn't they all get their weapons legally, or at least stole them from their own homes where family members had gotten them legally? That kind of helps the anti-gun argument & damages yours, doesn't it?

Not sure where I am reading an argument you are eluding to.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:22 pm

halfway;1417346 wrote: Not sure where I am reading an argument you are eluding to.
The OP is against demonizing legal gun owners, unless I'm mistaken. I'm pointing out that all the criminals listed were either legal gun owners, or were able to obtain guns from legal gun owners through normal acceptable means (such as taking mom's gun).

I guess I'm saying the terms "murderers" & "legal gun owners", are no more exclusionary than murderers & libs.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:57 am

Another viral email argument started just a few days ago. However, HW is smart enough to remove the part that has already been debunked. The original also makes the claim that none of the shooters had any affiliation with the NRA, which is bogus on it's face because Adam Lanza's mother was a member of the NRA and a gun enthusiast who taught her son gun safety and how to shoot.

What appears to be the original of this viral email makes claims of political affiliation of all these people and their family members but yet offers not a shred of evidence to validate the claims.

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/ ... oters.html

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:23 pm

halfway;1417291 wrote: We need to paint legal gun owners and the gun manufacturers as the villains.

I agree. Let's make gun owners just like drunk drivers in the public's eyes! Great idea! And we can allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers since their product is just like cigarettes and kills people!! Awesome!

Wow. That's some smart thinking, halfway. I'm going to contact my congressman and get on that right away!

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:27 pm

Saint_;1417414 wrote: I agree. Let's make gun owners just like drunk drivers in the public's eyes! Great idea! And we can allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers since their product is just like cigarettes and kills people!! Awesome!

Wow. That's some smart thinking, halfway. I'm going to contact my congressman and get on that right away!

You are much too dense to get the full meaning of the post and any ironic or sarcastic writing. "We". Understand who I am talking about. Or not.

Back to your four jobs rocket scientist.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:43 pm

halfway;1417415 wrote: You are much too dense to get the full meaning of the post and any ironic or sarcastic writing. "We". Understand who I am talking about. Or not.

Back to your four jobs rocket scientist.

Did you just read my ironic and sarcastic post, take it seriously, and accuse me of not being able to understand irony and sarcasm?!!

OH MY! Hahahahaha...how ironic.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:09 pm

Saint_;1417419 wrote: Did you just read my ironic and sarcastic post, take it seriously, and accuse me of not being able to understand irony and sarcasm?!!

OH MY! Hahahahaha...how ironic.

I think his favourite comeback just backfired on him :wah:

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:18 pm

Saint_;1417419 wrote: Did you just read my ironic and sarcastic post, take it seriously, and accuse me of not being able to understand irony and sarcasm?!!

OH MY! Hahahahaha...how ironic.

My point as well, no?

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:19 pm

Bryn Mawr;1417425 wrote: I think his favourite comeback just backfired on him :wah:

Far from "favorite" my friend. Don't be too quick to judge...but I will.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:30 pm

halfway;1417427 wrote: Far from "favorite" my friend. Don't be too quick to judge...but I will.

I don't need to judge - I've seen you use it far too often already

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:31 pm

Bryn Mawr;1417433 wrote: I don't need to judge - I've seen you use it far too often already

My point exactly.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:34 pm

halfway;1417434 wrote: My point exactly.

What is your point? That you've used that put down far too often? I'd agree with that.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:49 pm

halfway;1417434 wrote: My point exactly.What an odd response.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:50 pm

Saint_;1417414 wrote: I agree. Let's make gun owners just like drunk drivers in the public's eyes! Great idea! And we can allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers since their product is just like cigarettes and kills people!! Awesome!

Wow. That's some smart thinking, halfway. I'm going to contact my congressman and get on that right away!

The gun industry & tobacco are not the same. Big Tobacco sat on scientific results, there was a cover-up, there were outright lies concerning the safety of the product. Gun manufacturers don't deny their products can be lethal to humans.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:56 pm

AnneBoleyn;1417451 wrote: The gun industry & tobacco are not the same. Big Tobacco sat on scientific results, there was a cover-up, there were outright lies concerning the safety of the product. Gun manufacturers don't deny their products can be lethal to humans.

The OP was simple graphic showing what the media tries to hide and then blame on another group. Is it hard to see which side of the issues the news media and Hollywood tend to be on? No need for anyone to get defensive, but I can usually bet on which side the media will fall on almost any issue. They also enjoy "bleeding is leading", so that says a bit about their profession as well. Good company.

hehehehe.

To all my journalist friends, you know I love ya....sure wish you could have come down to Waza Khwa to see the incredible progress instead of lounging in Kabul waiting for blood. I'm sure the gin was cold as well.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:26 pm

halfway;1417454 wrote: The OP was simple graphic showing what the media tries to hide and then blame on another group. Is it hard to see which side of the issues the news media and Hollywood tend to be on? No need for anyone to get defensive, but I can usually bet on which side the media will fall on almost any issue. They also enjoy "bleeding is leading", so that says a bit about their profession as well. Good company.

hehehehe.

To all my journalist friends, you know I love ya....sure wish you could have come down to Waza Khwa to see the incredible progress instead of lounging in Kabul waiting for blood. I'm sure the gin was cold as well. ;)No it wasn't. It was a viral email circulated by the gun lobby and its head-nodding ditto-heads.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:51 am

Might as well attempt to turn this thread into something actually thought provoking and meaningful in spite of the drivel it started out with.

Female bodies are often discovered at “secondary crime scenes, so labeled because they contribute evidence and insight into the scene of the primary investigation, where the maximum public performance of horror has occurred. Secondary may seem to connote collateral or less important damage, but from a narrative and perhaps a psychological point of view, these scenes can be viewed as primary, not only in chronological but social significance.

On a practical level, these female victims represent potential barriers to commission of the crime—people who could talk down the perpetrator, contact authorities, or otherwise interfere. In the mind of the killer, these women also may have posed a symbolic barrier to a conscious or subconscious self-image as the perpetually wronged party, a man with No Other Options, the prodigal avenger called to teach the world a drastic lesson.

Shooting sprees start with women - Salon.com

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:52 am

I think the data in the OP is meaningful in that it shows a clear leaning. If it were a small percentage, it would be random. But this shows a unanimous leaning.

I wonder what this suggests? Is there a connection of: morals? values? lifestyle? income? education? mental stability? spirituality?

I ask these particular categories because they are cornerstones of behavior both genetic and conditioned. Why would "all" have a political leaning or slant the same way?

It is thought provoking.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:59 am

halfway;1417498 wrote: I think the data in the OP is meaningful in that it shows a clear leaning. If it were a small percentage, it would be random. But this shows a unanimous leaning.

I wonder what this suggests? Is there a connection of: morals? values? lifestyle? income? education? mental stability? spirituality?

I ask these particular categories because they are cornerstones of behavior both genetic and conditioned. Why would "all" have a political leaning or slant the same way?

It is thought provoking.

What percentage are male vs female?

Do we have stats on race?

Do we have stats on economic stability of these shooters?

Do we know how many have clean records?

It might be interesting to see an actual profilers profile on who they see as the potential shooter, don't you agree?

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:00 am

flopstock;1417503 wrote: What percentage are male vs female?

Do we have stats on race?

Do we have stats on economic stability of these shooters?

Do we know how many have clean records?

It might be interesting to see an actual profilers profile on who they see as the potential shooter, don't you agree?

I agree....but the OP is talking about these particular stats.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:30 am

halfway;1417504 wrote: I agree....but the OP is talking about these particular stats.

That's the interesting thing about threads. They don't always mean the same thing to different people. For instance, I took it to be about the disingenuous crap being thrown around on the subject by folks on both sides .

I mean, seriously, when did one of these shooters declare themselves to be either progressive or liberal? I must have missed the manifestos left behind.

The question asked in the OP is "Who are the shooters?"

I think looking for real stats may be more interesting then wasting time with the bickering you guys seem so intent upon.

My own personal theory? The majority of mass shooters I hear about appear to be white men(young and old) who are not getting laid.

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:41 am

flopstock;1417509 wrote:

My own personal theory? The majority of mass shooters I hear about appear to be white men(young and old) who are not getting laid.

That brings about the ugliness that is rape. Epidemic in the USA!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:16 am

flopstock;1417509 wrote: That's the interesting thing about threads. They don't always mean the same thing to different people. For instance, I took it to be about the disingenuous crap being thrown around on the subject by folks on both sides .

I mean, seriously, when did one of these shooters declare themselves to be either progressive or liberal? I must have missed the manifestos left behind.

The question asked in the OP is "Who are the shooters?"

I think looking for real stats may be more interesting then wasting time with the bickering you guys seem so intent upon.

My own personal theory? The majority of mass shooters I hear about appear to be white men(young and old) who are not getting laid.

Stats for what? If you've got some, present them and if their legitimate we can discuss them. As I've said, the OP is nothing more than a viral email and I supplied the origin.

That the OP and subsequent posts by the thread starter continues to mask the OP doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Why should it be left to everyone but the thread starter to supply any supporting evidence to the OP? She's offered none, as is always the case with her.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:17 am

halfway;1417514 wrote: That brings about the ugliness that is rape. Epidemic in the USA!

Perhaps in your mind it does. I don't equate getting laid with being raped, but maybe that's just me?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:33 pm

AnneBoleyn;1417451 wrote: The gun industry & tobacco are not the same. Big Tobacco sat on scientific results, there was a cover-up, there were outright lies concerning the safety of the product. Gun manufacturers don't deny their products can be lethal to humans.

I just loved this from the instruction manual for the Kimber FULL-SIZE 1911 POSTOL.

NOTICE: Kimber Mfg., Inc. shall not be responsible for

any death, physical injury or property damage that

is the result of the proper or improper use of this

product.

Emphasis mine.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:51 pm

"These kids often feel very powerless. The one way they can feel like they're somebody, that they're a man, is to get a gun and kill people."

Our culture and media (such as violent movies and video games) only reinforce the notion that manhood is about attaining power, and social and sexual status. Violence is glorified as a way to get that power, he said.

Psychology of Mass Killing | Newtown School Shootings | LiveScience

and yet it is apparently not so easy to pigeon hole these folks...

Adam Lanza’s typical shooter profile - Salon.com

“I get a little nervous when people are trying to come up with simple answers, like ‘he was a loner’,” said Robert Geffner, a neuro-psychologist and president of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma at Alliant International University after the Virginia Tech shooting. “I think every report I’ve seen is focusing on ‘He’s a loner.’ It would be nice if somebody said, ‘Yes he is a loner, but most loners don’t kill people..."

halfway · Post by **halfway** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:56 pm

flopstock;1417560 wrote:

Adam Lanza’s typical shooter profile - Salon.com

."

salon dot com?

Really flopstock?

Eris · Post by **Eris** » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:36 pm

halfway;1417291 wrote: Unfortunately, each of these is easily validated with a quick Google search.
If they're easily validated, then you should have no trouble providing the sources for each of those claims.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:10 pm

Hmmmm been doing a bit of reading . Who are the shooters?

I'm reading up about the psychology of a mass murderer, and the Columbine boys.

This is why you have to change your gun laws.

The first mystery police had to solve was how Harris and Klebold were able to obtain the four guns used in the shooting. The two shotguns and the rifle could have been purchased legally by Harris, who had turned 18 less than two weeks earlier but the semi-automatic, identified as a TEC-DC9, could not be legally purchased by anyone under the age of 21.

It was soon revealed that a close friend of Dylan Klebold had purchased the guns for him at a gun show in the Denver area in November or December 1998. The young woman was identified as Robyn K. Anderson, an 18-year-old student at Columbine High School. She and Klebold had been close friends for some time and, although not romantically involved, had attended the school prom together three days before the shooting. Police investigations concluded that Anderson, who was in the running to be school valedictorian, had no prior knowledge of Klebold and Harris's plans for the guns and would not be considered as a suspect in the case.

The TEC-DC9 proved to be much more difficult to trace. The manufacturer initially sold it to a Miami-based company, Navegar Inc. In 1994, it was sold to Zander's Sporting Goods in Baldwin, Illinois. Zander's then sold the gun to a dealership near Westminster, which sold it, legally, to someone over the age of 21. At some point the gun was sold to Larry Russell, a Thornton firearms dealer, who sold it at the Tanner Gun Show. Although Russell did not keep records of the purchaser, he is definite that the person was over the age of 21. He was not able to identify Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, or Robyn Anderson as the purchaser from photographs shown to him by police.

Mark Manes and Philip Duran

Mark Manes and Philip Duran (AP)

For some time police suspected that Chris Morris, a member of the "Trench Coat Mafia" and an employee of a pizza restaurant where Harris and Klebold also worked, may have acted as a middle-man in the sale of the gun to the gunmen. Their suspicions were allayed when a person, who has not yet been identified by police, came forward to tell police that he had sold the gun to Harris. Two men have since been charged with supplying the guns to Harris.

Morris was also questioned extensively by police regarding the possibility that Harris and Klebold may have had one or more accomplices prior to the shooting. Early in the investigation there were as many as 10 people who police considered as possible suspects. Three teenagers, wearing black boots and trench coats, were detained during the confusion after the shooting but were later cleared of any involvement. Another teenager, who fled before the shooting began, is suspected of helping Harris and Klebold to carry duffel bags filled with bombs into the school. A teenager, wearing a white tee shirt was also seen with Harris and Klebold in the parking lot just before the gunmen entered the school, and Klebold's black BMW was seen 40 minutes before the shooting began, driving near the school with four teenagers inside. Police believe that, while there may have been others with prior knowledge of the shooting, Harris and Klebold were the only shooters.

The Columbine High School Massacre — Accomplices — Crime Library on truTV.com

Profiling Mass Murderers