Protecting mass shooters is a right wing thing, which their right wing may or may not do as a consequence of this. Mass shootings themselves outside of terrorism were first popularized by the Columbine shooting which inspired many copycats hoping to become as notorious. Thankfully the article calls this POS “the gunman” instead of giving them the infamy they may have wanted.
This is kind of an absurd take, Americans didn’t invent mass killings. There have been shootings and killings far longer than the US has even been around. Whatever problems the US has you can’t just lay every problem at their feet. It reads more like you’re trying to force some kind of political narrative than anything else.
No one is blaming US here. It was obviously the murderer’s fault. I don’t know how’d you come to the conclusion I’m blaming US. I was just mentioning the fact that it’s pretty common in the US while it’s not at all common here (or in Europe in general). And I always said that I’m quite relieved that these things are not happening here and that no one’s getting inspired by the US shootings. I think this sentiment is quite common among Europeans.
Because it’s quite common there? I’m not really sure what’s the confusion here. Is it common enough in the US that it’s infamous for it? Yes. Does that somehow make a shooting in a different country their fault? No.
Not attributing the particular mass shooting, but attributing mass shootings as a phenomenon, yes.
Don’t try to play dumb about your choice to call it a “lifestyle”. No one calls stabbing attacks “the British Lifestyle”, or anti-Muslim legislation “the French Lifestyle”, despite those things being common to those places, and them being infamous for them.
I specified non-political mass shootings by individuals, not mass killings in general. Obviously mass killings in general existed prior to that, and there were a few mass shootings prior to them becoming extremely common. The event that caused them to become common was Columbine, not the Charles Whitman mass shooting or any other historical mass shooting which had occurred rarely and sporadically until that point.
What the hell is a “non-political mass shooting”? Columbine wasn’t “political”, it was a couple of assholes who literally just did it because they thought it’d be ‘cool’. They didn’t make political demands or say “this is because gay people have rights” or whatever. You hear about more mass shootings in general starting around Columbine for the simple fact that that is when mass media and the Internet were becoming established.
But there were mass shootings before that, just because they didn’t go viral on non-existent social media doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. The whole reason Europe has the modern gun laws it does is in no small part because they’ve had mass shootings of their own.
You’re trying too hard to try and pin this one on the US and the more you try to defend the notion the more clear it becomes that this isn’t about shootings, it’s about some kind of weird agenda.
I’m not sure you’re understanding me, so let me try my best to clarify what I’m saying. Please approach my arguments in good faith rather than assuming I’m automatically wrong because I hold a motivation you’re assuming I have. Most mass shootings in history have been done for political reasons. Most of the time it’s the government acting through use of their militaries against other militaries and often against civilians, and also often by individuals or non-government groups committing acts of terrorism to affect some kind of political change. Some mass shootings, such as the one committed by Charles Whitman, were committed for other reasons but did not inspire others to follow their example.
The Columbine shooters were inspired to commit an act of violence by Timothy McVay not because they agreed with the radical libertarian political ideas he committed his act of terrorism for, but because they saw it made him notorious in the media. The Columbine shooters were inspired mainly by their desire for infamy and fame. This is clear from mountains of evidence of the shooters claiming that this is the inspiration for their act of violence. Since the Columbine shooters, an additional category beyond political violence has become common for mass shootings which is the desire to become infamous. Since Columbine this category of non-politically motivated mass shootings has been significantly more common than prior to Columbine mainly in the United States but also elsewhere such as Australia. There may have been mass shooters with the Columbine shooters’ motivations prior to Columbine, but they were rare and did not inspire the trend which Columbine inspired. It is extremely likely that since Columbine, the desire to become infamous is the motivation of a mass shooting which is committed for non-political reasons.
Media groups including the BBC have decided no longer to name and reveal information about mass shooters to deter this inspiration from possibly being fulfilled, hence why this article gives no details of “The gunman.” I am relieved whenever I see this and support it.
The US right wing protects mass shooters which the Australian right wing did not which is among the reasons why Australia does not have the same amount of issues with mass shootings as the US does. Because the Czech Republic has a strong right-wing element it may be possible they take measures to protect future mass shooters as the US has.
Which is a white supremacist take. The mass shooting is the terrorism. It reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing when the news reported right away that “this has all the markings of Islamic terrorists” until McVeigh and the other guy got arrested and charged, then they humanized the shit out of them and said how one was a veteran and yadda yadda.
Protecting mass shooters is a right wing thing, which their right wing may or may not do as a consequence of this. Mass shootings themselves outside of terrorism were first popularized by the Columbine shooting which inspired many copycats hoping to become as notorious. Thankfully the article calls this POS “the gunman” instead of giving them the infamy they may have wanted.
This is kind of an absurd take, Americans didn’t invent mass killings. There have been shootings and killings far longer than the US has even been around. Whatever problems the US has you can’t just lay every problem at their feet. It reads more like you’re trying to force some kind of political narrative than anything else.
No one is blaming US here. It was obviously the murderer’s fault. I don’t know how’d you come to the conclusion I’m blaming US. I was just mentioning the fact that it’s pretty common in the US while it’s not at all common here (or in Europe in general). And I always said that I’m quite relieved that these things are not happening here and that no one’s getting inspired by the US shootings. I think this sentiment is quite common among Europeans.
Calling it “the American Lifestyle” certainly seems like you’re attributing it to them.
Because it’s quite common there? I’m not really sure what’s the confusion here. Is it common enough in the US that it’s infamous for it? Yes. Does that somehow make a shooting in a different country their fault? No.
Not attributing the particular mass shooting, but attributing mass shootings as a phenomenon, yes.
Don’t try to play dumb about your choice to call it a “lifestyle”. No one calls stabbing attacks “the British Lifestyle”, or anti-Muslim legislation “the French Lifestyle”, despite those things being common to those places, and them being infamous for them.
Lifestyle implies an affinity for something.
Removed by mod
what…? i don’t even know what we’re doing here, guys
I specified non-political mass shootings by individuals, not mass killings in general. Obviously mass killings in general existed prior to that, and there were a few mass shootings prior to them becoming extremely common. The event that caused them to become common was Columbine, not the Charles Whitman mass shooting or any other historical mass shooting which had occurred rarely and sporadically until that point.
What the hell is a “non-political mass shooting”? Columbine wasn’t “political”, it was a couple of assholes who literally just did it because they thought it’d be ‘cool’. They didn’t make political demands or say “this is because gay people have rights” or whatever. You hear about more mass shootings in general starting around Columbine for the simple fact that that is when mass media and the Internet were becoming established.
But there were mass shootings before that, just because they didn’t go viral on non-existent social media doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. The whole reason Europe has the modern gun laws it does is in no small part because they’ve had mass shootings of their own.
You’re trying too hard to try and pin this one on the US and the more you try to defend the notion the more clear it becomes that this isn’t about shootings, it’s about some kind of weird agenda.
I’m not sure you’re understanding me, so let me try my best to clarify what I’m saying. Please approach my arguments in good faith rather than assuming I’m automatically wrong because I hold a motivation you’re assuming I have. Most mass shootings in history have been done for political reasons. Most of the time it’s the government acting through use of their militaries against other militaries and often against civilians, and also often by individuals or non-government groups committing acts of terrorism to affect some kind of political change. Some mass shootings, such as the one committed by Charles Whitman, were committed for other reasons but did not inspire others to follow their example.
The Columbine shooters were inspired to commit an act of violence by Timothy McVay not because they agreed with the radical libertarian political ideas he committed his act of terrorism for, but because they saw it made him notorious in the media. The Columbine shooters were inspired mainly by their desire for infamy and fame. This is clear from mountains of evidence of the shooters claiming that this is the inspiration for their act of violence. Since the Columbine shooters, an additional category beyond political violence has become common for mass shootings which is the desire to become infamous. Since Columbine this category of non-politically motivated mass shootings has been significantly more common than prior to Columbine mainly in the United States but also elsewhere such as Australia. There may have been mass shooters with the Columbine shooters’ motivations prior to Columbine, but they were rare and did not inspire the trend which Columbine inspired. It is extremely likely that since Columbine, the desire to become infamous is the motivation of a mass shooting which is committed for non-political reasons.
Media groups including the BBC have decided no longer to name and reveal information about mass shooters to deter this inspiration from possibly being fulfilled, hence why this article gives no details of “The gunman.” I am relieved whenever I see this and support it.
The US right wing protects mass shooters which the Australian right wing did not which is among the reasons why Australia does not have the same amount of issues with mass shootings as the US does. Because the Czech Republic has a strong right-wing element it may be possible they take measures to protect future mass shooters as the US has.
Yea. They said:
Which is a white supremacist take. The mass shooting is the terrorism. It reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing when the news reported right away that “this has all the markings of Islamic terrorists” until McVeigh and the other guy got arrested and charged, then they humanized the shit out of them and said how one was a veteran and yadda yadda.