You didn't mention gun control at all, but it was brought up. That part of my reply was not one aimed at your original post. I don't tend to think of threads as being owned by a specific person, but if you really don't want any mention of gun control at all, I can respect that.
Thank you for that respect,
@Exorcet - I've told you before it is always a pleasure to converse with you 👍 - but no, 'ownership' of the vapour-trail I leave on the internet, is as the trail of a snail on a leaf to me - here today, gone tomorrow.
I have, on record, initiated many discussions immediately, for
some of these events - and there have been many not covered - after all, there have been
dozens of such mass killings in the last two years.
The most obvious purpose would be to alert members about the incident, especially Americans, and especially Americans who may be in that area. It also opens the discussion to various aspects regarding the incident - the Who, What, Why, When and Where about it.
One benefit of this is that we learn from this - or hope to.
The discussion of course will also revolve sometimes around the means used towards these ends - but, IMO, should beware of becoming a rotation of debated arguments that take the discussion further and further into details of the means and to whether such means should exist or not.
If if we take away the means there will be a new means sourced - maybe a more lethal one. Drones with explosives? Only imagination limits these people.
Clancy wrote
Debt of Honor shortly before 9/11. That was imagination. Manifested later on by clever, but socially-imbalanced humans.
So looking at the means is not merely shadow-boxing, it's the biggest strawman ever created to cover up the real problem.
America's 'gun problem' is a separate problem. Heaven forbid that there is ever another civil war - and not just the one now between cops and unsung heroes against random well-armed attackers of society.
I have had my own say in the various gun threads - what's the point of retelling that story?
And we all know that while 'using guns' is a pattern, there have been many incidents involving other means.
And there have been other venues, not just schools,
The predominant pattern is that the American Public is not safe - and for anybody in any position of authority to admit that is basically to shoot themselves in the head - metaphorically speaking.
That leaves us in a most untenable position.
Talking about the pros and cons of the means used is useful, but shouldn't be the heart of the topic.
What is different this time is that we are going to change the
routine- in fact, take a long hard look at routines involved in these mass public killings.
Although I want to make it clear that what I said wasn't specifically about gun control, but about taking action. When it comes to these events we see many calling for the government to do something about it. I was pitching the idea that there might be a better way to get things done, or at least a quicker way. I was also thinking about the thread from some months ago about banning ICE vehicles, where the proponent of the idea wanted to make ICE illegal. I tried to steer things towards influencing the market without government intervention but I made no headway.
Making no headway with everybody, Exorcet, is also routine. Here today, gone tomorrow.
But can we change
one person for the better?
Could that person have turned out to be a bad egg but because of what you said hasn't gone on a rampage
yet?
Then that's all that matters, my friend.
Even in that case I think it's important to consider how attractive being a mass killer is. Ultimately we want a peaceful resolution to be more attractive than killing people to those who carry out these murders. The media spreading names and motives is a part of that balance.
There is irony to this, Exorcet.
Good Attention, Bad Attention, No Attention.
I tried to approach this concept and how it affects humans from a whole new angle in another discussion, and maybe it's time to restart that.
And yet - any time someone not getting attention goes out and gets attention (even short-lived) like this, that discussion is apt.
Suffice to say - here was another person who felt society had rejected them.
We have to ask ourselves - 'Did society reject this person?' and if so - 'when?'
Is
now the time appropriate to 'reject' this person - or are we merely continuing with the rejection?
How does one get help without attention - when one is desperate for
any attention, good or bad?
Because
either is better that none at all?
No attention congeals the brain - turning it from starry clarity to lifeless clay.
If we are to learn from this, if we are to change the routines, then we must learn to give each other more attention.
This means studying those who failed to be sociable enough to not randomly kill the public.
There are many patterns that are surfacing now that we have multiple incidents to study.
As well, more and more, we see that the American public has learned well enough some of the more successful routines, both Police and the assaulted - to call 911, to take preventive measures immediately, and many other routines that save lives in these situations - and that is what we should focus on this time - we should unearth as many details as possible about these heroes - we should glorify them if only in passing words - and we should pick up on the routines that save lives.
One of those routines may very well be being nice to your neighbor. Or classmate. Or that lonely guy that nobody gives attention to. Because any attention may be better than none and may save a life.
The only attention we can give this killer
now is no different to the attention we would give any virus - a close hard look towards further containment or eradication.
My view is that the labeling shouldn't matter. For me I don't feel that it does, but I do realize that people see things differently.
This depends on the level of kyriolexy.
And there are nasty words that society avoids. And there is sugar-coating. And brain-washing. And neuron-numbing.
The definition given all the time - 'mass shooting' - splayed across the news media - means the journalists have lost their handbooks or else are too busy snacking to clear their perspective.
This is more than 'mass shootings'.
I'll give them some words to chew on before I throw the dictionary at them - this is a 'phenomenon that takes multiple lives in public randomly and routinely by any means available.'
Find a new label. One closer to the truth, one where the connotations are unmistakable.