Another Mass Shooting In Texas

Tools    





I have such mixed feelings on this subject.

On one hand, no one wants to inspire more killers, no one wants to feel that because they named names or simply reported on or talked about what happened now makes them somehow responsible for the next massacre.

On the other hand, not talking about it, not reporting what's happening, going out of our way to ignore it in fear of creating copy cats feels like capitulation and caving in to fear... (the very thing our world leaders are always advising us NOT to do, they tell us not to let our way of life or our behaviors be changed by terrorists, but altering the way we communicate and disseminate information IS changing our behaviors out of fear).

We aren't the killers, so why do we have to change the way we report, and write, and what we can discuss, the way we transmit news or how we go about relaying information because of whoever the most recent nut job is? Why should we be made to feel responsible for the next attack or be forced to stifle ourselves and our media out of fear?

It's a very mixed bag.
Well said, Cap, and I sure as hell don't have any answers. But I do think there may be something to be said for the guidelines suggested in the article, not to avoid reporting these events, but to minimize the "glamorous" attention directed at the wingnuts themselves, e.g., minimal use of their names and images, not using "cool-sounding" phrases like "lone wolf", etc. I don't know, I guess it's a hell of a balancing act, at best.
__________________
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."



I just hope all christians aren't targeted..................
If so, a tiny church in a tiny town most Americans never heard of would be a pretty ridiculous place to start. But these things are never that organized, anyway (even if ISIS decides to claim responsibility after they hear about it).



We were talking about the same thing. Here's a link (containing several other links) to a two-year-old article on the subject: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ters-copycats/
I have such mixed feelings on this subject.

On one hand, no one wants to inspire more killers, no one wants to feel that because they named names or simply reported on or talked about what happened now makes them somehow responsible for the next massacre.

On the other hand, not talking about it, not reporting what's happening, going out of our way to ignore it in fear of creating copy cats feels like capitulation and caving in to fear... (the very thing our world leaders are always advising us NOT to do, they tell us not to let our way of life or our behaviors be changed by terrorists, but altering the way we communicate and disseminate information IS changing our behaviors out of fear).

We aren't the killers, so why do we have to change the way we report, and write, and what we can discuss, the way we transmit news or how we go about relaying information because of whoever the most recent nut job is? Why should we be made to feel responsible for the next attack or be forced to stifle ourselves and our media out of fear?

It's a very mixed bag.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we're talking about two different things here.

An organized terrorist group that carries out a planned hijacking, or an attack on a large place of business, is targeting us economically by trying to scare us out of traveling or doing business, and in that case our avoiding those activities IS changing our behavior, capitulating to fear, and giving the bad guys what they want, and I agree that's not good. But these solitary mass murderers, at least in part, are after the attention and posthumous "glory", in which case cavalierly publicizing their names, pictures, motives, life stories, and favorite colors is giving them what THEY want, which is also not good. I think there's a valid distinction to be made there.



You know, the more I think about it, the more I think we're talking about two different things here.

An organized terrorist group that carries out a planned hijacking, or an attack on a large place of business, is targeting us economically by trying to scare us out of traveling or doing business, and in that case our avoiding those activities IS changing our behavior, capitulating to fear, and giving the bad guys what they want, and I agree that's not good. But these solitary mass murderers, at least in part, are after the attention and posthumous "glory", in which case cavalierly publicizing their names, pictures, motives, life stories, and favorite colors is giving them what THEY want, which is also not good. I think there's a valid distinction to be made there.
The discrepancy is valid as the circumstances are different.

I understand one of the primary goals of organized terrorism is to have a psychological impact and change societal behavior, and doing so capitulates to their desires (whereas the same may not be the goal or desire of a demented lone killer, in most cases such things as altering the behaviors or attitudes of others may not even cross their minds. They may just be consumed with their own internal thoughts of destruction and deriving a sense of power by harming others).

But there are also similarities - the same arguments of not giving recognition could be applied to terrorist groups as well as lone killers since both seem to desire the spotlight, be responsible for the greatest amount of casualties and be emboldened or inspired by publicity.



New developments in this case.
It appears that the shooter was chased out of the church by another local who had a gun of his own.
The shooter was later found dead in his own vehicle.
It is steel unclear whether the death was self inflicted or if the shooter was actually killed by the local chasing him ( CNN: 11:37pm PDT )



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I asked before but it seems to have disappeared. Who is changing how we exchange info. You do this all the time. Drop pretty sentences in the sand and then don't clarify. It makes discussion very tedious.



Absolute heartbreak material...

Joe and Claryce Holcombe lost 8 members of their family including children, grandchildren, great grand children and one unborn great grandchild. But when asked about the shooter Claryce said, “we need to pray for his family, because they’re going through a terrible time, too.” Bless her soul. At least some people in this world know how to christian right.
__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Absolute heartbreak material...

Joe and Claryce Holcombe lost 8 members of their family including children, grandchildren, great grand children and one unborn great grandchild. But when asked about the shooter Claryce said, “we need to pray for his family, because they’re going through a terrible time, too.” Bless her soul. At least some people in this world know how to christian right.
I might have cried a giant fat one. When times get so bleak like right now along comes this beautiful angel. I strive to be just like her



Disturbing: Texas killer claimed to buy animals to use as target practice!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/us/tex...gue/index.html
I knew about the link between animal cruelty and human violence -- I wrote a paper about it in school -- but . . . I don't even know what to say about this.



I knew about the link between animal cruelty and human violence -- I wrote a paper about it in school -- but . . . I don't even know what to say about this.
Yes. There are also reports that this psycho abused and beat his own dog (not to mention the reports of spousal and child abuse where he fractured the skull of his infant step-son for which he was discharged from the Air Force).

I'm not opposed to greater gun control, but there's a major problem when people slip through the cracks of the gun control LAWS that are ALREADY on the books and are specifically designed to prevent this kind of person from getting their hands on guns.