Does "society" deserve any blame when mass killers blame society?

[joe]

I've been thinking about this today. Generally when you have a situation like what occurred recently in California, you get these types of responses:

1) Sadness for the families, those killed.
2) Arguments about gun control.
3) Blaming the individual, claiming he was simply a psychopath.
4) Blaming the parents and loved ones, for not raising the killer better or intervening.

Occasionally, you see some passing blame towards society. For instance after Columbine, there was an idea that we should be nicer to the outsiders, which even continues today with the proliferation of anti-bullying sentiment in schools.

But my question is, does "society" deserve any blame? What, or who, composes this society? Is there a greater collective nature to humanity, or at least within a country, that demands us to "improve" towards a better society? And if there's not, should there be?

I've found myself being nicer to people today. Giving words of encouragement to people on the off chance they need it. I guess I felt the desire to be nicer to my fellow man, try to lift people up instead of being so worried about my own anxieties, my own fears.

At the same time, I also prefer to just be an individual. I personally do feel like an outsider to society, or more accurately, an observer of it. I don't enjoy the feeling of social pressure, I actively fight against it. And I do my best to avoid social obligations. So it was a small paradox in my relatively awesome life, when compared to what some are going through.

And as for this killer in particular. I didn't listen to everything he said. He says girls didn't notice him. People didn't appreciate his talents. How much of it was crazed lunacy? Is there any aspect of it where he's actually correct? Maybe society does need to change, and these shootings are just symptoms of whatever rot exists below the surface.

Or.. maybe he was just crazy. Maybe his parents didn't do a good job raising him. You tell me.

What do think?

[Akrazotile]

America is a very large country, and in such we often get what sociologists refer to as the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon, or the "kitty genovese effect." Basically, the more people you have in a group, the less responsible each person feels for its direction, welfare, actions, etc.

There's a reason cities like NYC and Los Angeles have a reputation for just being a bunch of self-centered assholes crowded together, and small towns are known for "southern hospitality." When you get big conglomerations of people, everyone just starts looking out for themselves and has less concern for the group or the community.

America itself is very much like that. We are a country of immigrants and in many ways a nation of mercenaries, here to get our paycheck with very little concern for the preservation of American identity and values.


My point is not so much about whether 'society' bears any responsibility for this kids actions or not. Others can debate that, my point is that it would be nearly impossible to affect some kind of large-scale change even if that was determined to be the case. It's just something you have to live with in a country like U.S. and A. It's hard to influence 350,000,000 people. There's tons of opportunity here, but there's no avoiding the fact that it comes with a tradeoff. We are not a society that listens to the complaints of individuals. There's just too many people here for every voice to get heard. As a result, some people feel isolated and disaffected. Sadly, a handful of them will do unimaginable things.

[JohnFreeman]

America wants gun violence to stop, doesn't ban guns. Rest of the world :facepalm

[1987_Lakers]

America wants gun violence to stop, doesn't ban guns. Rest of the world :facepalm

You ban guns and you give Government total control. Our founding fathers wanted us to have guns for a reason.

[Akrazotile]

America wants gun violence to stop, doesn't ban guns. Rest of the world :facepalm


America wants drunk driving to stop, doesn't ban cars. :facepalm

[joe]

America is a very large country, and in such we often get what sociologists refer to as the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon, or the "kitty genovese effect." Basically, the more people you have in a group, the less responsible each person feels for its direction, welfare, actions, etc.

There's a reason cities like NYC and Los Angeles have a reputation for just being a bunch of self-centered assholes crowded together, and small towns are known for "southern hospitality." When you get big conglomerations of people, everyone just starts looking out for themselves and has less concern for the group or the community.

America itself is very much like that. We are a country of immigrants and in many ways a nation of mercenaries, here to get our paycheck with very little concern for the preservation of American identity and values.


My point is not so much about whether 'society' bears any responsibility for this kids actions or not. Others can debate that, my point is that it would be nearly impossible to affect some kind of large-scale change even if that was determined to be the case. It's just something you have to live with in a country like U.S. and A. It's hard to influence 350,000,000 people. There's tons of opportunity here, but there's no avoiding the fact that it comes with a tradeoff. We are not a society that listens to the complaints of individuals. There's just too many people here for every voice to get heard. As a result, some people feel isolated and disaffected. Sadly, a handful of them will do unimaginable things.

I get what you are saying and you have a point. And there's a lot of science behind what you say. I remember when I was a kid I felt such a greater emphasis of there being some "community," like it seemed humans all worked together and had a united way about them. There was the fireman, the cop, the guy at the grocery store, and society seemed organized and filled with kind people. Naive as it sounds now, I remember it being somewhat of a shock to me when it all started to become clear, that these were just peoples jobs, not some noble service. Most people were only nice to me because I was a kid, etc. I'm not sure if it's an America thing, but it does ring true that the "smaller neighborhood" thing is less isolated.

Strangely, with me not enjoying the bounds of society, I find it funny that I was so comforted by it. But I do think I changed a lot to get where I am.

[JohnFreeman]

You ban guns and you give Government total control. Our founding fathers wanted us to have guns for a reason.
Yeah to protect yourselves against the British invasion? I don't see American getting invaded anytime soon

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah to protect yourselves against the British invasion? I don't see American getting invaded anytime soon

Wow you are so naive.

[JohnFreeman]

Wow you are so naive.
No, Americans are just stupid. You are all to blame for school shootings

[joe]

I truly don't see how removing guns will stop mass killing. What if this Elliot guy just set a few sororities on fire, would that have been any better for anybody? I'm not looking to get into a gun control debate, I just find it amazingly silly to believe removing guns will stop these people from killing others..

My question, I believe the bigger question, is why are they killing others? Are there steps we can take "as a society" that could lower the percentage of people that choose this route.

If you argue that these people are simply psychopaths, getting rid of guns won't help, they'll still find a way to kill. If you argue that it's society, getting rid of guns won't help, they'll still find a way to kill. The only help seems to be finding the root of the problem and alleviating it. Or, just accepting that these things will happen from time to time, as Akrozotile suggested. Both seem like plausible reactions. Getting rid of guns... politically fueled short sightedness.

[Akrazotile]

No, Americans are just stupid. You are all to blame for school shootings

Actually, We da bess.

Deal with it.

:confisedshrug:

[ace23]

No, Americans are just stupid. You are all to blame for school shootings
He only killed 2 people with a gun js

[1987_Lakers]

No, Americans are just stupid. You are all to blame for school shootings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ror9v2LwHoY

[JohnFreeman]

America murders people everyday, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. War mongers.

[KeylessEntry]

You ban guns and you give Government total control. Our founding fathers wanted us to have guns for a reason.
so the government has total control in places like the UK and Australia?

the us govt has things like tanks and predator drones.... a citizen with an assault rifle cant do shit vs the government. maybe you didnt notice but things have changed a little bit since the founding fathers were around.

[JohnFreeman]

so the government has total control in places like the UK and Australia?

the us govt has things like tanks and predator drones.... a citizen with an assault rifle cant do shit vs the government. maybe you didnt notice but things have changed a little bit since the founding fathers were around.
Americans are vapid individuals

[miller-time]

You ban guns and you give Government total control. Our founding fathers wanted us to have guns for a reason.

So you can take pot shots at B2 bombers and M1 tanks? The only people being killed by guns are the people that those guns were supposed to protect. Statistically do you think that any gun you own is more likely going to be used to protect yourself against the government or be used on a fellow citizen?

[Akrazotile]

I truly don't see how removing guns will stop mass killing. What if this Elliot guy just set a few sororities on fire, would that have been any better for anybody? I'm not looking to get into a gun control debate, I just find it amazingly silly to believe removing guns will stop these people from killing others..

My question, I believe the bigger question, is why are they killing others? Are there steps we can take "as a society" that could lower the percentage of people that choose this route.

If you argue that these people are simply psychopaths, getting rid of guns won't help, they'll still find a way to kill. If you argue that it's society, getting rid of guns won't help, they'll still find a way to kill. The only help seems to be finding the root of the problem and alleviating it. Or, just accepting that these things will happen from time to time, as Akrozotile suggested. Both seem like plausible reactions. Getting rid of guns... politically fueled short sightedness.


Well for most of human existence, life was basically a day to day struggle just for survival.

Technology has exponentially increased the amount of free time many people have available, and one of the off shoots of that is increased time to contemplate ones place in society. For some people, certain perceptions (real or imaged) about their situation just begin to overwhelm them. And in a rare number of individuals you get action this extreme.


To answer your question, IMO theres not much 'society' can do about this because 350M people arent going to change themselves to accomodate a stranger here or there. Moreover, the reality is that some people are just mentally disturbed. Society is naturally competitive in many ways, and offers few guarantees. Some people just inevitably do extreme things when they ate not satisfied with their life or place in society. I think it is unavoidable.

[Akrazotile]

so the government has total control in places like the UK and Australia?

the us govt has things like tanks and predator drones.... a citizen with an assault rifle cant do shit vs the government. maybe you didnt notice but things have changed a little bit since the founding fathers were around.


:facepalm

Drones and tanks cant occupy citizens homes or arrest them without cause. "Protection from the goverment" does not mean a literal war out of some post apocalytpic distopian novel. Its a means of preserving the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which naturally governments WILL try to usurp over time in the cycle of corruption and revolution that has played out continuously throughout mankind.


Gun control weenies are the short sighted heart-thinkers. No ration or reason, just excessive sensitivty and a desperation for superiority.


Edit: I shouldnt say "gun control" bc I think most find that reasonable, I should say "gun opposition extremists" which more aptly describes folks like keylessentry and miller time

[Done_And_Done]

America is a very large country, and in such we often get what sociologists refer to as the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon, or the "kitty genovese effect." Basically, the more people you have in a group, the less responsible each person feels for its direction, welfare, actions, etc.

There's a reason cities like NYC and Los Angeles have a reputation for just being a bunch of self-centered assholes crowded together, and small towns are known for "southern hospitality." When you get big conglomerations of people, everyone just starts looking out for themselves and has less concern for the group or the community.

America itself is very much like that. We are a country of immigrants and in many ways a nation of mercenaries, here to get our paycheck with very little concern for the preservation of American identity and values.


My point is not so much about whether 'society' bears any responsibility for this kids actions or not. Others can debate that, my point is that it would be nearly impossible to affect some kind of large-scale change even if that was determined to be the case. It's just something you have to live with in a country like U.S. and A. It's hard to influence 350,000,000 people. There's tons of opportunity here, but there's no avoiding the fact that it comes with a tradeoff. We are not a society that listens to the complaints of individuals. There's just too many people here for every voice to get heard. As a result, some people feel isolated and disaffected. Sadly, a handful of them will do unimaginable things.

Good post. You've been strong in this thread...

[KeylessEntry]

:facepalm

Drones and tanks cant occupy citizens homes or arrest them without cause. "Protection from the goverment" does not mean a literal war out of some post apocalytpic distopian novel. Its a means of preserving the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which naturally governments WILL try to usurp over time in the cycle of corruption and revolution that has played out continuously throughout mankind.


Gun control weenies are the short sighted heart-thinkers. No ration or reason, just excessive sensitivty and a desperation for superiority.


Edit: I shouldnt say "gun control" bc I think most find that reasonable, I should say "gun opposition extremists" which more aptly describes folks like keylessentry and miller time

didnt you "retire" from ish a week ago? go study geography or something you dumb motherfvcker

[joe]

Well for most of human existence, life was basically a day to day struggle just for survival.

Technology has exponentially increased the amount of free time many people have available, and one of the off shoots of that is increased time to contemplate ones place in society. For some people, certain perceptions (real or imaged) about their situation just begin to overwhelm them. And in a rare number of individuals you get action this extreme.


To answer your question, IMO theres not much 'society' can do about this because 350M people arent going to change themselves to accommodate a stranger here or there. Moreover, the reality is that some people are just mentally disturbed. Society is naturally competitive in many ways, and offers few guarantees. Some people just inevitably do extreme things when they ate not satisfied with their life or place in society. I think it is unavoidable.

Thoughtful. I think you're right, or at least, I haven't thought up a good counter question yet.

[sick_brah07]

lol at people saying banning guns doesnt work...

australia had a nut case kill 32 people they banned guns hand guns and machine guns and made it hard to get a gun license... to have a gun to you have to registered

since then there have been no mass random killings, made this happened by accident? lol

you Americans are amazingly stubborn when it comes to changing your ways

in regards to initial question

no i do not believe its society's fault, i have never bullied any one or been bullied but i have been made fun of and embarrassed in front of girls i liked but I have always understood that you have to be tough to survive in this world. I was not put on this earth to make sure soft people aren't scared or shy guys are taught how to pick up girls. When I'm a parent that will be my job and even then i will teach my kid to get back up when pushed over and keep going just like my parents did to me.

This American kid was well off and had no reason to go nuts and kill people, we have all been rejected by hot girls and had people dislike us its a part of life. I knew then and still know to this day i wont always get what I want

You cannot blame society, we will live in a society that allows you to have pretty much any type of life you want if you really want it.

Ill go out on a limb and say from what I have heard about the type of up bringing this kid has had i think he was a spoiled brat who couldn't get what he wanted so he went mental like a little kid

[sick_brah07]

Well for most of human existence, life was basically a day to day struggle just for survival.

Technology has exponentially increased the amount of free time many people have available, and one of the off shoots of that is increased time to contemplate ones place in society. For some people, certain perceptions (real or imaged) about their situation just begin to overwhelm them. And in a rare number of individuals you get action this extreme.


To answer your question, IMO theres not much 'society' can do about this because 350M people arent going to change themselves to accomodate a stranger here or there. Moreover, the reality is that some people are just mentally disturbed. Society is naturally competitive in many ways, and offers few guarantees. Some people just inevitably do extreme things when they ate not satisfied with their life or place in society. I think it is unavoidable.

hitting the nail on the head

[BasedTom]

To a degree, yes. There is not much sense of community these days. I personally blame post-WW2 efforts to kill nationalism forever.

It can be difficult for people to find their place in the world. People are so driven by their own goals and desires that often times they view others as a means to achieving those goals. It may not appear to be much on the surface, but daily interactions can feel so shallow and hollow. Eventually an individual can feel so neglected, trapped, and isolated that they become a threat to themselves and others. It is obviously not in the best interests of any party at any level of society for things to reach that point.

I am skeptical of the support systems we have in place. Medicine is very much a business, and seeking help can be very time consuming, expensive, and draining. It could be argued that it does more harm than good in some cases. And as I understand how it works, once you've checked in, you can't ever really move on from that past, as it is something that I assume will be on your records.

It is a complex issue, of course.

[sick_brah07]

To a degree, yes. There is not much sense of community these days. I personally blame post-WW2 efforts to kill nationalism forever.

It can be difficult for people to find their place in the world. People are so driven by their own goals and desires that often times they view others as a means to achieving those goals. It may not appear to be much on the surface, but daily interactions can feel so shallow and hollow. Eventually an individual can feel so neglected, trapped, and isolated that they become a threat to themselves and others. It is obviously not in the best interests of any party at any level of society for things to reach that point.

I am skeptical of the support systems we have in place. Medicine is very much a business, and seeking help can be very time consuming, expensive, and draining. It could be argued that it does more harm than good in some cases. And as I understand how it works, once you've checked in, you can't ever really move on from that past, as it is something that I assume will be on your records.

It is a complex issue, of course.

Society is far from perfect but i don't understand the bolded, this is a two way street its like consistently trying to be friends with people who never call you anywhere or stop calling you. Im sure that has happened to everyone at some point.... you just have to learn to adapt.

what professional help did this kid need though ? someone to help him get a girl to like him? i understand what your saying in regards to it being a complex issue about society and rough society can be, but i dont see how it can be someone elses fault if another person cant handle rejection like the rest of us can...

[BasedTom]

Society is far from perfect but i don't understand the bolded, this is a two way street its like consistently trying to be friends with people who never call you anywhere or stop calling you. Im sure that has happened to everyone at some point.... you just have to learn to adapt.

what professional help did this kid need though ? someone to help him get a girl to like him? i understand what your saying in regards to it being a complex issue about society and rough society can be, but i dont see how it can be someone elses fault if another person cant handle rejection like the rest of us can...
There's not much that can really be done at that point I think. People are conditioned by mass media to believe that life is all about material possessions, having tons of sex, being famous. I mean, that's cool and all, but IMO, it brings down everyone when every single person is acting solely with this in mind.

Every fakkit seems to want to be a celebrity (just a generalization here), when obviously such a thing can never really happen. Combine this with a bit of sociopathy and delusion, and there's a chance that you wind up with somebody like these mass murderers. This kid regularly participated in a forum dedicated for those who felt like outsiders from society, and his hatred and jealousy was probably just reinforced. He deluded himself into believing that shooting up some people would make him a revolutionary or some sort of hero. He is obviously totally responsible for his crimes, but his very mindset and psyche was affected by external factors of the modern world.

As for the bolded part, I don't mean significantly big acts of kindness- just the way and general feel that exists in interaction. It's not like being constantly flattered or patrionized...nor seeking that from others. Just more or less being pleasant I guess . I would find it weird if every random stranger on the train suddenly wanted to converse and talk and talk, but by the same token, I'm not sure it's ideal for people to completely avoid interaction unless they want to use somebody, and come across that way.

[ace23]

Ill go out on a limb and say from what I have heard about the type of up bringing this kid has had i think he was a spoiled brat who couldn't get what he wanted so he went mental like a little kid
Love when people trivialize mental illness.

[robert de niro]

You ban guns and you give Government total control. Our founding fathers wanted us to have guns for a reason.
the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government. They only made this Amendment because they didn't want (and were scared of) a standing army. Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

[sick_brah07]

There's not much that can really be done at that point I think. People are conditioned by mass media to believe that life is all about material possessions, having tons of sex, being famous. I mean, that's cool and all, but IMO, it brings down everyone when every single person is acting solely with this in mind.

Every fakkit seems to want to be a celebrity (just a generalization here), when obviously such a thing can never really happen. Combine this with a bit of sociopathy and delusion, and there's a chance that you wind up with somebody like these mass murderers. This kid regularly participated in a forum dedicated for those who felt like outsiders from society, and his hatred and jealousy was probably just reinforced. He deluded himself into believing that shooting up some people would make him a revolutionary or some sort of hero. He is obviously totally responsible for his crimes, but his very mindset and psyche was affected by external factors of the modern world.

As for the bolded part, I don't mean significantly big acts of kindness- just the way and general feel that exists in interaction. It's not like being constantly flattered or patrionized...nor seeking that from others. Just more or less being pleasant I guess . I would find it weird if every random stranger on the train suddenly wanted to converse and talk and talk, but by the same token,I'm not sure it's ideal for people to completely avoid interaction unless they want to use somebody, and come across that way.

when you put it like this i kinda have no choice but to agree..

you are definitely right, pressure to "make it" and "do something with your life" is pretty high and ridiculous and when you think about it what is the point ?

[sick_brah07]

Love when people trivialize mental illness.

How am i doing that? if i'm wrong and the kid was sick then fair enough, but you cant act like there aren't kids out there that go crazy when they do not get what they want. This whole idea of kids have mental issues is overblown... yes sure there are kids who legit have mental problems but we are so quick to justify any act of stupidity with "mental issues"... maybe this kid had shit parenting and was actually spoilt and when he couldn't get what he wanted to started getting more and more angry until he hit boiling point

[GimmeThat]

it's either the system that connects the people together
or the people in the system

it's difficult to make change to the system for a small population
but then it's also difficult to ask people to change when events doesn't affect them directly.

[iamgine]

I've been thinking about this today. Generally when you have a situation like what occurred recently in California, you get these types of responses:

1) Sadness for the families, those killed.
2) Arguments about gun control.
3) Blaming the individual, claiming he was simply a psychopath.
4) Blaming the parents and loved ones, for not raising the killer better or intervening.

Occasionally, you see some passing blame towards society. For instance after Columbine, there was an idea that we should be nicer to the outsiders, which even continues today with the proliferation of anti-bullying sentiment in schools.

But my question is, does "society" deserve any blame? What, or who, composes this society? Is there a greater collective nature to humanity, or at least within a country, that demands us to "improve" towards a better society? And if there's not, should there be?

I've found myself being nicer to people today. Giving words of encouragement to people on the off chance they need it. I guess I felt the desire to be nicer to my fellow man, try to lift people up instead of being so worried about my own anxieties, my own fears.

At the same time, I also prefer to just be an individual. I personally do feel like an outsider to society, or more accurately, an observer of it. I don't enjoy the feeling of social pressure, I actively fight against it. And I do my best to avoid social obligations. So it was a small paradox in my relatively awesome life, when compared to what some are going through.

And as for this killer in particular. I didn't listen to everything he said. He says girls didn't notice him. People didn't appreciate his talents. How much of it was crazed lunacy? Is there any aspect of it where he's actually correct? Maybe society does need to change, and these shootings are just symptoms of whatever rot exists below the surface.

Or.. maybe he was just crazy. Maybe his parents didn't do a good job raising him. You tell me.

What do think?
There is no single answer to that. Most likely a combination of things.

We see different response from the same action everyday.

In a much less serious scale, the same army training can make half the trainees quit. Why do they quit? Is the training harsh? Or the quitters just weak mentally? Or there's not enough words of encouragement for them while they're doing it? Most likely all of them.


Same principle apply.

[step_back]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65077000/gif/_65077559_us_gun_compared_624.gif

America has got to find a way of reducing the amount of gun related deaths. I've heard the argument many times that a gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands and if you're responsible there is nothing to worry about. Everyone is prone to making mistakes and losing their ability to think rationally, I think this often fuels a lot of these killings as mass murder spree's of this kind are still quite rare. That is more about trying to stop someone with mental health problems attaining a weapon.

P.S Whoever said the government want to stop drink drivers and won't ban cars are using a jump in logic. One is designed to travel across land the other is designed to kill people.

[9512]

I live in France & it baffles me that Americans say french people are rude. It's just french people are blunt and straight forward w/ their opinions in their interactions.

Americans can be rude too but they express theirs via systematic exclusion and passive aggression (like ignoring).

For all the crap french get for their rudeness I can say french people interaction makes me feel part of the community.

American society is a fragmented, disconnected, and overly self absorbed.

Elliott Rodger was coocoo for cocoa puffs but he was definitely part of stratified society that look down figuratively on those who didn't love up to success or coolness or popularity.

[GimmeThat]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65077000/gif/_65077559_us_gun_compared_624.gif

America has got to find a way of reducing the amount of gun related deaths. I've heard the argument many times that a gun is only dangerous in the wrong hands and if you're responsible there is nothing to worry about. Everyone is prone to making mistakes and losing their ability to think rationally, I think this often fuels a lot of these killings as mass murder spree's of this kind are still quite rare. That is more about trying to stop someone with mental health problems attaining a weapon.

P.S Whoever said the government want to stop drink drivers and won't ban cars are using a jump in logic. One is designed to travel across land the other is designed to kill people.


It does have something to do with America and American's mentality in wanting to save the world.

The day the world no longer needs to be saved, it is certainly an issue worth looking into.

The reality is that amongst different worlds, first world, second world, and or third world what is Good/Bad, what is morale is that of different standards. And no, I don't give a sh*t about your first world statistics when its the Americans fighting the wars that happens in a third world country so the world appears to be stable or sane for however long. Nor am I interested in your first world agenda that we should just let them fight it out, while people are obtaining mass killing weapons.


The fact that we still need to utilize "first world" as a term to differentiate "civilized countries and non-civilized" is quite a shame. You won World War 2, congrats and now all of them declared "peace" while the rest of the world rottens because nothing is worth fighting for anymore.

There are many things you can innovate, but tell me how you plan on innovating humanity without making a robot that doesn't feel.

[Balla_Status]

No, Americans are just stupid. You are all to blame for school shootings

Quit being a wanker. Australia is absolutely no comparison to America. You are naive to think you can compare the way Australians live to the way Americans live.

The only truth is that Australians are obsessed with Americans. You watch american sports, TV, movies, porn, etc. You have TV shows dedicated to stupid shit that happens in America...shirts with american flags, NY hats, LA hats etc. List goes on dude.

Americans are pretty stupid, you're right. But when you then follow everything America does after you make that statement? Yeah, pretty stupid yourself.

You guys learn about the goddamn Mayflower and other American history growing up as a kid.

This really goes for every other foreigner as well...You compare your country's best to America's worst because that's what you hear about.

I do enjoy living somewhere that I don't have to worry about school shootings but to act like your country is comparable to America is laughable. (I don't mean in an America **** yeah! kind of way just in a cultural kind of way.) It just isn't the same. Honestly, don't have an intention of even going back to live in America really...

[Blue&Orange]

I truly don't see how removing guns will stop mass killing. What if this Elliot guy just set a few sororities on fire, would that have been any better for anybody? I'm not looking to get into a gun control debate, I just find it amazingly silly to believe removing guns will stop these people from killing others..

lol you can't be this stupid. How removing guns will stop mass killing? Eisntein clearly you aren't.



My question, I believe the bigger question, is why are they killing others? Are there steps we can take "as a society" that could lower the percentage of people that choose this route.
How about don't give them guns.


So basically this idiot thinks they easiest way to save lives is to everyone become a professional psychiatrist and everyone be nicer cause you never know.

Basically in one paragraph, gun control? no! But why didn't someone gave blowjobs to that dude? All this could be avoided... dam you society.


Quick obvious response, It's not society fault as an whole... is just that backwards redneck part called republicans.

[JohnFreeman]

It was funny when they were showing the Boston bombing headlines in Australia, everyone was like "we don't give a shit"

[Balla_Status]

I live in France & it baffles me that Americans say french people are rude. It's just french people are blunt and straight forward w/ their opinions in their interactions.

Americans can be rude too but they express theirs via systematic exclusion and passive aggression (like ignoring).

For all the crap french get for their rudeness I can say french people interaction makes me feel part of the community.

American society is a fragmented, disconnected, and overly self absorbed.

Elliott Rodger was coocoo for cocoa puffs but he was definitely part of stratified society that look down figuratively on those who didn't love up to success or coolness or popularity.

****ing this dude. I've realized this myself recently. You just want as much time off as possible to do the things you want to do if work isn't doing it for you.

[Balla_Status]

It was funny when they were showing the Boston bombing headlines in Australia, everyone was like "we don't give a shit"

Nah, you guys care. Every **** here wants to go to NYC/Boston to visit.

[Done_And_Done]

Just a quick little response to those who believe that less guns equate to less overall crime. It's a general response and doesn't incorporate mass killing spree's per say, but it does quell some of the myths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI

[step_back]

It does have something to do with America and American's mentality in wanting to save the world.

The day the world no longer needs to be saved, it is certainly an issue worth looking into.

The reality is that amongst different worlds, first world, second world, and or third world what is Good/Bad, what is morale is that of different standards. And no, I don't give a sh*t about your first world statistics when its the Americans fighting the wars that happens in a third world country so the world appears to be stable or sane for however long. Nor am I interested in your first world agenda that we should just let them fight it out, while people are obtaining mass killing weapons.

The fact that we still need to utilize "first world" as a term to differentiate "civilized countries and non-civilized" is quite a shame. You won World War 2, congrats and now all of them declared "peace" while the rest of the world rottens because nothing is worth fighting for anymore.

There are many things you can innovate, but tell me how you plan on innovating humanity without making a robot that doesn't feel.

What the **** are you on about? :wtf:

What does America's "need" to save the World have to do with Americans being killed by other Americans with firearms.

[step_back]

Just a quick little response to those who believe that less guns equate to less overall crime. It's a general response and doesn't incorporate mass killing spree's per say, but it does quell some of the myths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI

Even though I hate Piers he was specifically talking about gun crime which in the U.K is barely a fraction of what it is in the U.S. You can't counter his argument by including every other crime statistic we report. Stay on the specific topic.

Less guns equate to less gun related deaths. This is a simple fact. What you said was less guns equate to less overall crime. There's a difference in that argument.

P.S I'd also like to point out that was constitutes a crime over here might not be a crime over there. We've sent internet trolls to prison before.:roll:

[GimmeThat]

What the **** are you on about? :wtf:

What does America's "need" to save the World have to do with Americans being killed by other Americans with firearms.


my interpretation of the constitution on the right to keep and bear arm.

even right after they won the American Revolutionary War

[step_back]

my interpretation of the constitution on the right to keep and bear arm.

even right after they won the American Revolutionary War

Again, what does that have to do with Americans killing other Americans with Firearms?

[JtotheIzzo]

America is a very large country, and in such we often get what sociologists refer to as the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon, or the "kitty genovese effect." Basically, the more people you have in a group, the less responsible each person feels for its direction, welfare, actions, etc.

There's a reason cities like NYC and Los Angeles have a reputation for just being a bunch of self-centered assholes crowded together, and small towns are known for "southern hospitality." When you get big conglomerations of people, everyone just starts looking out for themselves and has less concern for the group or the community.

America itself is very much like that. We are a country of immigrants and in many ways a nation of mercenaries, here to get our paycheck with very little concern for the preservation of American identity and values.


My point is not so much about whether 'society' bears any responsibility for this kids actions or not. Others can debate that, my point is that it would be nearly impossible to affect some kind of large-scale change even if that was determined to be the case. It's just something you have to live with in a country like U.S. and A. It's hard to influence 350,000,000 people. There's tons of opportunity here, but there's no avoiding the fact that it comes with a tradeoff. We are not a society that listens to the complaints of individuals. There's just too many people here for every voice to get heard. As a result, some people feel isolated and disaffected. Sadly, a handful of them will do unimaginable things.

You are essentially right, but there were ways and means to get this kid right and nothing was done. He was obviously deeply disturbed and his family is one of means.

Lots of fail to go around.

[Dresta]

America is a very large country, and in such we often get what sociologists refer to as the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomenon, or the "kitty genovese effect." Basically, the more people you have in a group, the less responsible each person feels for its direction, welfare, actions, etc.

There's a reason cities like NYC and Los Angeles have a reputation for just being a bunch of self-centered assholes crowded together, and small towns are known for "southern hospitality." When you get big conglomerations of people, everyone just starts looking out for themselves and has less concern for the group or the community.

America itself is very much like that. We are a country of immigrants and in many ways a nation of mercenaries, here to get our paycheck with very little concern for the preservation of American identity and values.

My point is not so much about whether 'society' bears any responsibility for this kids actions or not. Others can debate that, my point is that it would be nearly impossible to affect some kind of large-scale change even if that was determined to be the case. It's just something you have to live with in a country like U.S. and A. It's hard to influence 350,000,000 people. There's tons of opportunity here, but there's no avoiding the fact that it comes with a tradeoff. We are not a society that listens to the complaints of individuals. There's just too many people here for every voice to get heard. As a result, some people feel isolated and disaffected. Sadly, a handful of them will do unimaginable things.
This is very true and is the main cause behind the atomisation of society and the general isolation of the individuals. Twas predicted by De Tocqueville nearly 200 years ago that if the US moved away from the community spirit and local political institutions that were predominant at the time, the equalising power of democracy (that makes men feel equally unimportant) would not be combatted, and you would have people feeling themselves to be an unimportant, isolated and indistinct part of a great mass over which they have no control and very little understanding. And that this would cause people to become more reliant on the state as a consequence because political affairs would not be a part of their day-to-day lives, and so people'd show no interest in them.

The citizenry needs direct political involvement otherwise democracy doesn't and cannot function effectively, and for this you need local institutions. Who doesn't feel tiny and insignificant beneath the mass power of the federal government? Not that any of this has anything to do with this whackjob, who's clearly seriously delusional, narcissistic, and mentally deranged anyway.

[Dresta]

lol you can't be this stupid. How removing guns will stop mass killing? Eisntein clearly you aren't.


How about don't give them guns.


So basically this idiot thinks they easiest way to save lives is to everyone become a professional psychiatrist and everyone be nicer cause you never know.

Basically in one paragraph, gun control? no! But why didn't someone gave blowjobs to that dude? All this could be avoided... dam you society.


Quick obvious response, It's not society fault as an whole... is just that backwards redneck part called republicans.Could you be more simple-minded and lacking in nuance?

You just grab the first semi-plausible solution and cling to it for dear life, and don't even bother to think about in the slightest. 2 out of 6 killed with a gun; this guy was killing people with or without a firearm, yet you go on a rant about guns :facepalm .

[stalkerforlife]

Of course society deserves blame. People are assholes. People are selfish. People are heartless.

Our society, especially in America, pushes evil, lustful agendas on us and when we can't achieve our desires they put within us, we are left depressed, worn out, and angry.

Women sit here and flaunt themselves all the time, yet if certain types try to talk to her, she rejects you and leaves you feeling worthless. That makes men angry and sometimes vengeful.

[step_back]

Of course society deserves blame. People are assholes. People are selfish. People are heartless.

Our society, especially in America, pushes evil, lustful agendas on us and when we can't achieve our desires they put within us, we are left depressed, worn out, and angry.

Women sit here and flaunt themselves all the time, yet if certain types try to talk to her, she rejects you and leaves you feeling worthless. That makes men angry and sometimes vengeful.

I look at rejection in a way that she rejected my approach. Not necessarily me as a person. You can be the most handsome, rich , intelligent man on the planet and be her perfect type but you know what, maybe she just wasn't interested right there and then.

If you can't take rejection you're going to resent women eventually. Every single guy get's rejected at some point in their life. The key is to get over it and move on. Don't be a bitch about it.

[stalkerforlife]

I look at rejection in a way that she rejected my approach. Not necessarily me as a person. You can be the most handsome, rich , intelligent man on the planet and be her perfect type but you know what, maybe she just wasn't interested right there and then.

If you can't take rejection you're going to resent women eventually. Every single guy get's rejected at some point in their life. The key is to get over it and move on. Don't be a bitch about it.

Some guys get rejected a lot more than others, leading to anger and retaliation. As a man, I don't like a woman flaunting herself and then acting like i'm a complete loser for talking to her. It angers me. I believe in dress codes.

We've given women way too much power in this society.

[joe]

lol you can't be this stupid. How removing guns will stop mass killing? Eisntein clearly you aren't.


How about don't give them guns.


So basically this idiot thinks they easiest way to save lives is to everyone become a professional psychiatrist and everyone be nicer cause you never know.

Basically in one paragraph, gun control? no! But why didn't someone gave blowjobs to that dude? All this could be avoided... dam you society.


Quick obvious response, It's not society fault as an whole... is just that backwards redneck part called republicans.

I used to be on your side when I was in college so I won't jump down your throat about it. I remember getting in an argument with this kid in my dorm, more a drunken debate, and I was 100% behind getting rid of guns.

I think you should just consider the fact that people like Elliot, from everything we hear was completely filled with venom and rage. His only goal at that point was to murder several people that he felt represented the wrongs of our culture.

Now let's say guns were completely impossible to obtain, made illegal and removed from society. In some cases, a killer like Elliot may use a knife only, and only be able to kill three people before he's taken down. But in other cases, maybe he goes up and starts setting fire to sorority houses. Maybe he learn how to build bombs and detonates them in highly dense areas.

I'm not blind, I do realize that without access to guns, it would be more difficult for these people to kill others. It would take more time, more thoughtfulness. But there's still plenty of ways to do so.

If you believe that guns in general are an evil of society, that's a different debate. I think there's merit to that argument. But specifically as a reaction to mass murder, I think it's short sighted.

[step_back]

Some guys get rejected a lot more than others, leading to anger and retaliation. As a man, I don't like a woman flaunting herself and then acting like i'm a complete loser for talking to her. It angers me. I believe in dress codes.

We've given women way too much power in this society.

How do you know that though? If it's just a case of the good looking guys getting girls then we'd have serious population issues. Like I said how could she reject you as a person, she'd have to know who you are and what you're like. This leads me back to she rejected your approach.

[Dresta]

If you believe that guns in general are an evil of society, that's a different debate. I think there's merit to that argument. But specifically as a reaction to mass murder, I think it's short sighted.
Guns aren't an 'evil' of society, they freed society from feudal dominion, where one would pay fealty to one's lord and knight because he was their only means of protection in a dangerous world. Guns were a great equaliser in this regard. I don't think modern civilisation could have developed without them.

[ILLsmak]

all of the blame. That doesn't mean that person isn't a piece of shit, though. They still did it, but instances like this are proof of how ****ed up our society is.

There are too many problems to mention. Like i said, this dude was probably a psycho, a madkid, OK, but the way media works (and I always say this) is that we are assaulted with these images daily. You can't look anywhere without some message being suggested to you, so of course it's influencing people. From outside and within.

Unfortunately, no matter what your IQ is... or what you think you are, if you start killing people, you have missed a step in your logic. Because the issue is not people. It's whatever has been built and will continue to live behind the scenes.

-Smak

[joe]

Guns aren't an 'evil' of society, they freed society from feudal dominion, where one would pay fealty to one's lord and knight because he was their only means of protection in a dangerous world. Guns were a great equaliser in this regard. I don't think modern civilisation could have developed without them.

I tend to think you're right, but something seems off about either our society or just our humanity that defending yourself is such a big requirement. I don't think taking away guns will do any good. But it would be cool if eventually people gave them up voluntarily, no need for them anymore. Not holding my breath though.

[Akrazotile]

P.S Whoever said the government want to stop drink drivers and won't ban cars are using a jump in logic. One is designed to travel across land the other is designed to kill people.

Nope. It is desgned to emit projectiles at high speeds. This can be done to hunt animals for food (which many americans do) or for the sport of marksmanship (many Americans do) or to serve as a warning when a potential intruder is heard.

Also, America has prolific gang activity, and if we made a concerted effort to round up gang members and deport them to a rock floating in the middle of the pacific (as we SHOULD do), our viilent crime stats would drop tremendously.

Smart gun regulation is a good thing. Banning them outright because of random and rare abuses that result in tragedy is a misguided affair, much like prohibition was. Much like banning cars would be.

[step_back]

Nope. It is desgned to emit projectiles at high speeds. This can be done to hunt animals for food (which many americans do) or for the sport of marksmanship (many Americans do) or to serve as a warning when a potential intruder is heard.

Also, America has prolific gang activity, and if we made a concerted effort to round up gang members and deport them to a rock floating in the middle of the pacific (as we SHOULD do), our viilent crime stats would drop tremendously.

Smart gun regulation is a good thing. Banning them outright because of random and rare abuses that result in tragedy is a misguided affair, much like prohibition was. Much like banning cars would be.

So a gun isn't designed to kill people? What are they doing handing them out to the military then?!?! You can split hairs all you want. The main purpose of a gun is to kill. Hunting and shooting (Sports) are popular outside the U.S especially in EU countries like Finland and they don't have the same problems as you guys do.

I'm not suggesting you ban all weapons otherwise I would state that, but guns seem to fall into the hands of nut jobs all too easily in the states. It's a sad fact that America seems to have these types of mass killings on a yearly basis. I agree with you on smart regulation but who is deemed the right to have weapons and how could one prove their worth for it?

[Swaggin916]

The blame is on the individual for not finding it within themselves to change what they don't like about it.

[Blue&Orange]

I used to be on your side when I was in college so I won't jump down your throat about it. I remember getting in an argument with this kid in my dorm, more a drunken debate, and I was 100% behind getting rid of guns.

I think you should just consider the fact that people like Elliot, from everything we hear was completely filled with venom and rage. His only goal at that point was to murder several people that he felt represented the wrongs of our culture.

Now let's say guns were completely impossible to obtain, made illegal and removed from society. In some cases, a killer like Elliot may use a knife only, and only be able to kill three people before he's taken down. But in other cases, maybe he goes up and starts setting fire to sorority houses. Maybe he learn how to build bombs and detonates them in highly dense areas.

I'm not blind, I do realize that without access to guns, it would be more difficult for these people to kill others. It would take more time, more thoughtfulness. But there's still plenty of ways to do so.

If you believe that guns in general are an evil of society, that's a different debate. I think there's merit to that argument. But specifically as a reaction to mass murder, I think it's short sighted.
I'm not against guns, hell if i lived in the us, the first thing i would do would be getting a gun. I just don't understand how you have to spend half you life passing exams to get a job, passing exams to get a car, and to get a gun you just go to a store and buy it :roll:

How about before trying the impossible by analyzing society and change it, how about doing something easy and simple and make access to guns harder to deranged people?


The problem isn't not thinking gun control wouldn't save lives, is more, my rights >> someone else life.

[Dresta]

I tend to think you're right, but something seems off about either our society or just our humanity that defending yourself is such a big requirement. I don't think taking away guns will do any good. But it would be cool if eventually people gave them up voluntarily, no need for them anymore. Not holding my breath though.
It is humanity, which is what society is a product of. If defending yourself against other human beings had not been such a big requirement historically, then there would be no need for government at all, as it came about as a means of enforcing universal rules of conduct that protect one individual from another. Peoples who didn't have this protective force preventing one individual from appropriating from another, or from killing another etc. were unstable and weak collectively, and so their more tribal forms of society died out.

Thus went the progression of societal evolution that has led us to where we currently are. Cultures more conducive to human survival persisted, and their tenets were carried forward, whereas those that didn't were conquered or destroyed, or just deteriorated and died out themselves. Fundamentally, the drives of human beings - and their biological constitutions - have not changed, but the cultural values imparted from one generation to the next have, and this has a big influence on how the human being thinks. Almost all customs and traditions have been preserved by various human societies at one time or another (things we would find repulsive or ridiculous) due to habit alone. Just like now people don't know why they hold many of the opinions they do, or why they observe many of the cultural traditions they have become accustomed to, but because of this process of trial and error, and consequent cultural refinement, we can surmise that most of them of value in one way or another, even if we can't see it all that clearly.

But that doesn't mean human nature has changed all that much on a fundamental level - the tribal mentality and tribalistic thinking is still predominant, where each seeks to secure advantages for his or her particular group, at the expense of other groups. And there is clearly still a need for a government with the power to protect one individual from another, but just as clearly a need that the government not have a complete monopoly on the use of protective force, which the outlawing of firearms provides. It is a common failing in history for peoples during peacetime and relative prosperity to be incapable of imagining anything ever going seriously wrong, but historically, something has always gone wrong, and when it does i'd much rather have the gun policy of the United States than be stuck on an island like the UK, with its several million security cameras, and near-complete ban on privately owned firearms.


I'm not against guns, hell if i lived in the us, the first thing i would do would be getting a gun. I just don't understand how you have to spend half you life passing exams to get a job, passing exams to get a car, and to get a gun you just go to a store and buy it :roll:

How about before trying the impossible by analyzing society and change it, how about doing something easy and simple and make access to guns harder to deranged people?


The problem isn't not thinking gun control wouldn't save lives, is more, my rights >> someone else life.
It isn't my rights >> someone else's life, it is that everyone's rights and personal liberties >>> a tiny amount of deaths. I mean, if the state had absolute power over people, and could hang draw and quarter murderers, and had near ubiquitous surveillance (like London), many lives would likely be saved as well, and people would live their lives in greater security, but then their lives would barely be worth living anyway. There is no such thing as freedom without risk, and it is foolish to think otherwise. It is why your average man has no real taste for freedom, and is willing to surrender it for the meanest increase in personal security - because most human beings are cowardly and don't want the personal responsibility and risk that freedom brings.

And i was under the impression that California had some of the tightest gun control regulations in the US? It also seems to me that state-by-state there is little correlation between liberality of gun legislation and number of killing sprees (though i may be wrong on this - i haven't looked it up).

I generally just think these kind of things are unavoidable for the most part, and largely unimportant anyway.

[bladefd]

Interesting topic. Here's my take.. (I plan on blogging all this one day)

First part-
I agree that society does deserve blame because bullies are not formed on their own. Every person has some good in them even mass killers but it is simply masked by their anger, rage, whatever that stems from society. Society could be other people mistreating them or not caring, ignoring them, etc. Society is always a culprit that deserves some blame.

Second part-
Now the bigger thing to consider is ok fine, society has screwed you in some ways. Now what do you do about it? Do you become a hypocrite and punish society back and continue the endless cycle of violence? Do you go do something even worse by killing a bunch of people? People ALWAYS have a choice, and I feel this is where mass killers lose ultimately. You go kill a bunch of people then you will end up killing yourself too so what'd you gain? NOTHING!

I always say that character is the most important thing a person can have. You can get angry at people and rage, but never resort to violence. A person of character would never reach for violence or mass slaughter. I think every person has that in their back-pocket, but you simply stay to your principles. Never let anything compromise those principles and morals.

You might ask who is to blame for those who compromise their principles? Part of the issue starts because people develop faulty morals and principles. Their parents are not there or pay enough attention to help that during childhood or they hang out with the wrong crowd - they simply have nobody to help guide them or develop their morals and/or ethics.

I noticed this happens much more so in American society for whatever reason. I wish I had an exact answer for why violent crimes happen more in Western societies than Eastern. My only guess is that it comes down to how much parents/friends/relatives/etc are around you to help you grow as an individual. People whose family doesn't give a sh!t tend to be the ones that run into these issues. In Eastern societies like India, parents are close to you and you're close to them your whole life. In USA, once kid hits 18-23 range, they're gone. Might get a phone-call once a month or less :lol

Anyways, like I said, you always have a choice with what kind of life you lead - unless if you're completely lunatic. Respect, honor, perseverance, honesty, integrity, etc are what you try to live your life by. So what if society pushes you on the curbside? You bring yourself up and overcome by any means necessary - not this mass murder dark path. It is better to be ignored and live your life the 'right' way to the best of your abilities than to have people spit on your grave after some heinous crime of mass murder.

Just my view.

[Dresta]

I can understand someone not wanting to live and wanting to go out with a bang, but at least take out some high-profile asshole instead of shooting up a bunch of random people going about their everyday activities. It's not like the people he killed were any kind of great beneficiaries of society or something, in fact, he's probably got far more from society than the people he killed. Basically, he's a spoiled brat heaping misery on people already less fortunate than himself; really pathetic.

It really takes incredible levels of self-delusion to do what he did, though this is a common trait among those who spend a lot of time on online messageboards for some reason.

[red1]

I can understand someone not wanting to live and wanting to go out with a bang, but at least take out some high-profile asshole instead of shooting up a bunch of random people going about their everyday activities. It's not like the people he killed were any kind of great beneficiaries of society or something, in fact, he's probably got far more from society than the people he killed. Basically, he's a spoiled brat heaping misery on people already less fortunate than himself; really pathetic.

It really takes incredible levels of self-delusion to do what he did, though this is a common trait among those who spend a lot of time on online messageboards for some reason.
Well said. It takes incredible weakness of character to pull the shit that he did and surely that weakness stems from his upbringing. If he wasn't such a spoiled little shit perhaps he would've learned to appreciate what he had.