I’ve had a copy of that on my cubicle wall the past couple years. The Poetry Foundation sends me an audio poem every day. It’s a nice way to start the day.
Wikipedia uses a broad definition. Most definitions of terrorism and common usage of the term specify the political and social goal (I’m rolling religious into “social”) as definitional.
Primary goal or not, that needs to be there to be terrorism. In broader definitions you don’t neccisarily need a specific goal or movement, or an intent to sow terror. But there needs to be some root in ideology motivating it.
The “original” spree shooting, the Texas Tower Shooting. ( Original in that it’s the first we pegged as such, these things had happened before but like with serial killers this one happened right at the time we began to codify that this was a thing other than random evil). Wasn’t terrorism. And lacked any clear connection to political or social factors. Whitman appear to have been motivated by frustration with how his life was falling apart combined with uncontrollable violent fantasies and urges. It’s possible an agressively brain tumor fucked with his impulse control, and created those violent urges. But it seems that his inability to get help with the symptoms of that brain tumor is part of what he was lashing out at.
This is not neccisarily a mental illness style dismissal. A lot of spree killers. Like a lot of serial killers don’t really have the sort of serious psychological conditions we mean when we say that. The bulk of them aren’t “crazy” by any means, in that these are people who can distinguish right and wrong, and recognize the difference between reality and fantasy. For the most part these are not people suffering from psychosis. While a number of clear terrorists, especially of the lone radical type, do.
The psychological frame work for all three is remarkably similar. The social factors that drive it are remarkably similar. And pathological behaviors these guys engage in are remarkably similar. But they seldom boil down to “That guy is bananas” or “that guy is just evil”.
Causing fear isn’t the defining thing.
The Vegas shooter we never really got a clear idea of the motivation. The guy was apparently deeply in debt. There are signs that he was mentally ill. But there are also reports that he held extreme right wing views and was heavy into anti-government conspiracy theories.
Munich, 911, Charleston, Matthew Shepherd and the list goes on of political, religious, racial or hate based “terroristic” killings. Some asshole decides to “leave a mark” or “take some people with me” or even “fuck them all, I’ll show them who is impotent” are not (IMHO) terrorism, but I am not even sure what is a “mass shooting” anymore in a society where it seems to take huge body counts for anyone to notice. Really, I am not quibbling, I don’t know how or where you draw the line and in way it does not matter. We have a shit ton of folks who think that if they take out a bunch of people they will be famous or something. I don’t understand that mentality and don’t want to. I think categorizing may actually be a coping strategy, like in if I focus on how to pigeonhole this event, I won’t have to think about what actually happened as much. Maybe? Who the fuck knows anymore.
I don’t give a fuck about the 2nd Amendment. Seize all the guys. If the president does it, it’s legal.
Practically down the street from me. I work three miles from this place. Drive by this every damn day. I have a doctor’s appointment like 500m from this place today.
So tragic. We are so broken. So utterly broken.
<< Ventury County Sheriff Geoff Dean told reporters that he has “no reason to believe there was a link to terrorism”>>
Yup! I heard at the news conference they were considering him having “mental health issues” and immediately realized the perp was a white boy.
Don’t forget the Indian Wars, extending up to 1924. Freedom to be able to steal Native land was main one of purposes of the “American Revolution.”
So there was a good guy with a gun at the scene … but it didn’t help? How is that? Gun not big enough?
Liked to but can’t - bone spurs …
We need a bot that posts this and the two comics above on every single platform (Facebook, Twitter, newspapers comments section) after every gun massacre.
The Onion has an updated article.
So - uh - I get this is some sarcasm and a dose of dark humor mixed with frustration.
But it’s also victim blaming. Dude was doing his job to actually protect and serve (which they aren’t technically obligated to do) and died.
People have had time outs for less.
That’s not really what the press conference said. They were going over his past criminal history. Which is really minor. Like a speeding ticket and a car accident. Except for that recent report which I think was initially described as a domestic disturbance. Press asked for elaboration on these interactions. So the sherrif specified details.
The domestic call was apparently a noise complaint. The responding officers thought there might be a psych element to it. Specifically because the guy identified himself as a marine and the officers at that time were concerned about PTSD. But when they called a psych team out the guy was cleared. The sherrif repeated that detail in response to every question. That the actual mental health professionals saw no cause to send the guy to a psych ward, and he didn’t meet the legal standard for doing so forcibly.
The sherrif seems to have been trying to stress that there wasn’t evidence of a mental health situation. Even as he’s pretty much required to provide an honest accounting of that earlier police report. The news have locked in on the details of that report, in the absence of anything else to go on.
The Chris Rock plan?:
They aren’t calling out the Sheriff’s sergeant who died trying to stop the shooter, they are calling out people who insist that “good guys with guns” can stop “bad guys with guns”. I’m sure everyone is glad the sergeant tried to stop the shooting and wishes that he had prevailed. The problem with the “guns and protect us from guns” narrative is that lethal violence is unpredictable, and overwhelming favours the party that shoots first. It’s a childish view of violence, as if we live in an action movie where good guys always win instead of real life where real bullets kill real people.
I think it was under Bush when everything started to be classified as terror. The word terrorism went on vacation, and it always made me wince. (I don’t think it makes any sense to use them synonymously.)
How the hell do you get “victim blaming” out of my statement? The deputy died a hero. But his death also demonstrates that “good guys with guns” aren’t really effective when it comes to preventing mass shootings.
I don’t blame the deputy. I blame the people who continue to support gun laws that put him and others in the line of fire.
I don’t remember ever seeing that, but yeah. That. Let’s do that.
And significantly when there are good guys with guns around they tend to. Die.
Trump was called out for suggesting the Synagogue shooting wouldn’t have happened if they had armed guards. The nasty detail is that multiple armed Police officers. Specifically trained to deal with this. Died. And the shooting still happened.
More over those specially trained professionals in the subject of dealing with shootings. Are incredibly opposed to the armed the teachers bullshit. And frequently point out how that will only increase body counts. And complicate police attempts to protect people.
OO, OO I know, I know ! pick me !
There a distinct lack of brown people or immigrants in that picture.
Did I get it right ?
I caught myself barely even reacting to this one, it’s become normal.
Make of that what you will