Post: #101

Our society unfortunately has no way to deal with people who aren't totally crazy but instead are just a little off. Perhaps in the past better family ties, wives, churches, ethnic communities, etc, were able to keep them in line.

But modern society has left socially awkward individuals with few support mechanisms - not being able to get laid a prime symptom,
and so add in the violence glorification in our culture and you get a formula for these shoot em up incidents.

Going forward I doubt there's anything we can do - perhaps some sort of mental health test prior to purchasing guns and yearly checkups to maintain a gun license would have prevented this, but the nation won't stomach it politically. And the sad thing is that I don't even know if they should - that gives the government an awful lot of power if they can pick and choose who can buy guns. Fears of an all powerful government is the reason why the second amendment exists in the first place.

So what happens when you can't restrict gun sales to someone who's a bit "weird," and he has no one keeping him in line from falling over the deep end - whether it's extreme betaness or video game obsession? Well you have people acting out to get attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone
May to some extent explain the type of isolation that leads to these events.

I think the lesson here is that society has drifted far from what naturally makes humans happy, and that perhaps we have to rethink everything about what life structure we spoonfeed to the masses. Of course instead the politicians and ideologues (and possibly the manosphere too) are going to manipulate this incident to fit their agenda....

Post: #102

(07-20-2012 05:46 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 05:36 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  One thing I know for certain in this whole sad saga .... James Holmes makes more 'ginas tingle today than he ever could imagine.

I'm not so sure about that. This isn't Rambo/James Bond swagger type violence. This is the "creepy" guy type of violence. Especially knowing that he killed little kids. He's right down there with a pedophile. This dude is fucked(literally) when he gets to jail.

Anders Breivik is getting lots of love letters, so hey. You never know how "creepy" can become "powerful".
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/2...s-in-jail/

Post: #103

(07-21-2012 12:48 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  The killer is a fag

How is he a fag?

He has horrendous game, but gay?

In general, Gay guys don't care about shooting people. They're guys just like us- they just want to stick it in. But they want male assholes (or an emotional connection, but are too afraid to get it from women).

It is more feminist to just say that he's some gay whacko- that takes the wind out any kind of hetero viewpoint.

Mens' assholes (which, as gross as it is, are most likely physically not much different from a woman's).

In general, besides all the hate, Gays probably live a more "alpha" styled life than most guys on here. They get sex from lots of partners that they are very attracted to, much more easily than us straight guys. I envy that- imagine a world of hot girls that you can be direct with. What more could you want in life?

Post: #104

(07-21-2012 01:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Anders Breivik is getting lots of love letters, so hey. You never know how "creepy" can become "powerful".
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/09/2...s-in-jail/

I thought a certain segment of women worshiping these sickos was widely known?

I had an uncle, retired now, that was a CO at San Quentin. Part of his rotation put him on the wing with the condemned unit or death row. The unit with the worst of the worst of California's prisoners.

He said it was insane how many letters and naked photos guys like Richard Ramirez, The Trailside Killer, Lawrence Bittaker etc. would get. And the shit these women would write was not of the "Hi. How arer you?" type.

They had to confiscate the naked photos, but the letters were passed on. He said some of the chicks were actually really good looking. More than you would think. There were plenty of gassy scrags and toothless hounds, but enough hot ones to make it disturbing.

And these fucks are sadistic assholes. Read about Bittaker and his buddy here.

Hmm, I just read an interview with Bittaker. He says something interesting. And it agrees with Roosh's assessment in the first entry of this thread.

What was your motivation for the crimes?

I’m going to tell you the truth. My psychosexual development stopped when I first got incarcerated at 16. I’ve spent 40 of my 65 years in jail. It destroyed my social and sexual development. I never had a normal upbringing. My family life was like I was a boarder. I don’t hate women. I can’t understand raping an 80-year-old woman. You’re raping someone who’s unattractive. Something is screwy with that. But I can understand the rape of an attractive girl who turns you on. I love girls, young and attractive. My fantasy is a girl screaming, but because of pleasure. My whole life I had no woman who loved me. And that’s what I wanted so bad. That’s why I took the girls into the mountains.

Post: #105

I'm very skeptical of the statement that not getting laid is a legitimate cause for the crimes of crazed mass murderers. It may influence it, but I suspect only a psychopathic mind (i.e. lack of empathy or remorse) and a sadistic personality can really make someone do that.

I'm not convinced that "not getting laid" is any better a reason than traditional excuses like "violent videogames" or "rap music".

Post: #106

Prescription drugs all day. It was recently released that Americans take 80% of the world prescription pain killer drugs. So what % do they consume when it comes to psychiatric drugs??? Roughly 20% I think. I can't believe people would blame this type of thing on lack of pussy when so many Americans are doped on on some sort of prescription drug.

Post: #107

(07-21-2012 03:12 AM)soup Wrote:  

(07-21-2012 12:48 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  The killer is a fag

How is he a fag?

He has horrendous game, but gay?

In general, Gay guys don't care about shooting people. They're guys just like us- they just want to stick it in. But they want male assholes (or an emotional connection, but are too afraid to get it from women).

It is more feminist to just say that he's some gay whacko- that takes the wind out any kind of hetero viewpoint.

Mens' assholes (which, as gross as it is, are most likely physically not much different from a woman's).

In general, besides all the hate, Gays probably live a more "alpha" styled life than most guys on here. They get sex from lots of partners that they are very attracted to, much more easily than us straight guys. I envy that- imagine a world of hot girls that you can be direct with. What more could you want in life?

HE IS A HOMOSEXUAL.

All the talk about his sexual frustration is not relevant in this case because he is gay. Read the link I posted after you have finished white knighting for no reason at all.

Post: #108

Quote:HE IS A HOMOSEXUAL.

All the talk about his sexual frustration is not relevant in this case because he is gay. Read the link I posted after you have finished white knighting for no reason at all.

I read the article you linked, and it says nothing of the sort. Did you read it?

Quote:“Holmes” described himself as a straight man … and said he was seeking a sexual relationship with “Women, Couples (man and woman), Groups or Couples (2 women).”

“Holmes” also notes that he’s interested in “Erotic Chat or Email, Discreet Relationship, 1-on-1 sex or Group sex (3 or more!)”

In the section marked, “Introduction” … “Holmes” said, “Looking for a fling or casual sex gal. Am a nice guy. Well, as nice enough of a guy who does these sort of shenanigans.”

Post: #109

(07-20-2012 11:35 AM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 08:55 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 07:35 AM)Roosh Wrote:  In the days ahead I'm sure it will come out that this guy was socially awkward, probably a virgin, who was spurned by women.

Probably, but their are exceptions. Columbine shooter Eric Harris was neither of the above (unlike his partner who ticked all three boxes), he outpulled the schools football team. He did hate the girls who rejected him with a passion though, perhaps due to the extent of his narcissism. Even though I don't see it personally in photos of him girls at his school said that he was a good looking, charming and smooth guy while psychologists almost unanimously say he was a textbook narcissist and psycopath, can't help but wonder if that actually improved his game...

RIP to those people. If that incident happened in LA, where spectacular publicity stunts are very probable, I could've been fooled and been shot.

re: the killer
I've kept my mouth shut before about sympathizing with these frustrated killers and always felt (without any knowledge about "red pill / manosphere" stuff) that the news about them doesn't really get to the core of the problem beyond the killer being simply sexually frustrated. Problems persist till another one blows up.

And geez P, reading your blog and posts you seem to have an amazing depth of USA knowledge. What's with the fascination as a person who doesn't live here?

There is no fascination, but the only news sites I ever go on are American so that's where it comes from. Australian media spends a lot of time on the US as well, especially the election and anything related to a recession or the US economy.

Post: #110

(07-20-2012 10:13 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 09:25 PM)x2d4d Wrote:  A shooting like this is a massacre because of gun control, not the lack of it. Had the theater been full of armed men ready to fight for their life and the lives of their loved ones, substantially fewer people would have been killed and injured. Not to say that, in aggregate, gun control isn't worth it, just that this was a sardines-in-a-barrel situation and the gunman was massively outnumbered. Fighting back would have been far and away the best option for survival if they'd had suitable weapons.

In theory, this might not be wrong. The problem with this logic is when you apply it to reality: the other 364 days of the year, every little beef is going to end up with guns drawn. Every douchebag that fronts you in a bar is now going to have a gun behind the roid rage. Every bitch that instigates a confrontation in a club is going to do so in crowd of armed-ass dudes. Bitch might have a gun herself. Fewer people might die at once, but I'd venture to say--in aggregate--you're going to have a lot up shot-up-ass people. The deterrent argument just doesn't take real human nature into account. All of sudden, every little dude is going to go head up with big-ass dudes because the playing field is suddenly leveled. The court will be packed with "self-defense" cases.

If it'd been legal for me to carry, and use a gun, this whole time, do you know how many people would have been capped (or at least seriously threatened) by now? Dudes start beef with me all the time. I de-escalate first, until I can't do so without getting punked or endangering myself or my people. After that, it's whatever I got.

Not good logic.

Yeah that's what I meant by "not a good idea in aggregate" and specifically identified this as a sardines-in-barrel situation without suggesting the logic be applied indiscriminately in all situations. I am sure, at least in our uncivilized culture, guns for all means that by the end of the year there are going to be far more than a dozen homicides that could have been avoided.

I'm just saying that anyone holding this event up as an example of why we need more gun control is full of shit.

"Lunatic shoots up a theater using weapons he probably got illegally anyway therefore gun control." That is the bad logic.

Post: #111

(07-20-2012 10:45 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  The thing consistent in all these assholes is they go to places where they know large groups of people will be unarmed and unable to fight back. They will be the only guy with a gun in the entire place.

Columbine? They wanted to commit suicide, and decided it'd be fun to kill a lot of people before they did. School campus. Unarmed kids.

One L. Goh in Oakland did a Richard Spec. Goes to a gun free campus. Corners a bunch of unarmed female students and shoots them at his leisure. Then drives off to brag to his check-out clerk friends about his one moment of power.

Add VA Tech to that. 'Gun free zones' are just soft target kill zones.

Why don't mass shooters go to shooting ranges or gun matches and do their dirty deed? Plenty of targets, and they can carry their guns without causing suspicion. Yet they don't. Because even psychopaths don't like getting shot. So they choose places where they can be sure they will be the only ones with a gun.

If the politicians think labeling something a 'gun free zone' is effective, why is the Capitol Building surrounded by heavily armed men? Why not just slap some "No Guns" signs on the property and save millions of dollars annually?

(07-20-2012 03:35 PM)Moma Wrote:  Worldwide I have lived in multiple heavily populated countries and I don't hear of the same mass slaughters happening like they do in the US to the same frequency. What is the common denominator?
How many group killings have I heard of now? Imagine if this clown had a machete? How many lives would he take before the crowd stomp him to death as opposed to his firearm.
How many chops a minute with machete or switchblade compared to the amount of rounds discharged by the semi?

Yes, firearms make one-time mass murder more likely. But plenty of serial killers get by with a knife. And let's put this in perspective. The kills in that theater are just the norm for a weekend in Chicago - the city with the strictest gun control in the country.

(07-20-2012 09:30 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 09:25 PM)x2d4d Wrote:  A shooting like this is a massacre because of gun control, not the lack of it. Had the theater been full of armed men ready to fight for their life and the lives of their loved ones, substantially fewer people would have been killed and injured. Not to say that, in aggregate, gun control isn't worth it, just that this was a sardines-in-a-barrel situation and the gunman was massively outnumbered. Fighting back would have been far and away the best option for survival if they'd had suitable weapons.

So are you suggesting that we walk around suited up in body armor and carry automatic weapons every time we leave the house? In a state like Colorado citizens can easily obtain guns, so your argument makes no sense to me.

That theater chain has a no guns policy. So it's quite possible that people with concealed carry permits left their guns in the car. That's exactly what happened in the Libby's restaurant massacre in Texas - woman leaves her concealed carry firearm in her car because the restaurant has a "no guns" sign. Then she watches a psychopath burst in and start shooting, killing both of her parents.

Another aspect here is deterrence - see earlier point - mass murderers choose soft targets where they know no one else will have a gun.

I don't know how good his armor was, but even if a handgun caliber round wouldn't have penetrated it, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have knocked him down or hurt like a motherfucker. At the very least, it buys more time for people to get out and for the cops to get there. And if someone was seated close to him when he started, they could have shot him in the face. Gas masks aren't bulletproof.

(07-20-2012 10:13 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  In theory, this might not be wrong. The problem with this logic is when you apply it to reality: the other 364 days of the year, every little beef is going to end up with guns drawn. Every douchebag that fronts you in a bar is now going to have a gun behind the roid rage. Every bitch that instigates a confrontation in a club is going to do so in crowd of armed-ass dudes. Bitch might have a gun herself. Fewer people might die at once, but I'd venture to say--in aggregate--you're going to have a lot up shot-up-ass people. The deterrent argument just doesn't take real human nature into account. All of sudden, every little dude is going to go head up with big-ass dudes because the playing field is suddenly leveled. The court will be packed with "self-defense" cases.

If it'd been legal for me to carry, and use a gun, this whole time, do you know how many people would have been capped (or at least seriously threatened) by now? Dudes start beef with me all the time. I de-escalate first, until I can't do so without getting punked or endangering myself or my people. After that, it's whatever I got.

Not good logic.

The problem with your logic is that while it seems to make sense, the evidence fails to back it up. Years ago, the town of Kennesaw, GA enacted a law requiring every head of household to own a firearm. The liberals were screaming that the streets would run red with blood. Of course, this didn't happen and Kennesaw boasts one of the lowest, if not the lowest, violent crime rate for a city of its size. Same thing when the Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004 - "Oh noes, people will be mowing each other down with AR15s and AK47s and our streets will become war zones." Again, didn't happen. Millions of these semiautomatic "evil black rifles" have been sold since 2004. Yet use of these rifles in crimes is the rare exception, not the rule. Yet this logic is used over and over again, without regard to the fact that it is utterly unsupported by the data.

The reality is that an armed society is a polite society. I carry a gun and I've been in stores in the boondocks where I know gun ownership and concealed carry are relatively high. Guess what - the people are the nicest and most civil people you can imagine. Much nicer than the northeast where I came from. When law abiding citizens are armed, they are not looking to escalate every disagreement into something larger because of all the ramifications.

(07-20-2012 11:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 11:26 PM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:  I think that people will be a lot more careful and respectful with their words and actions if it's common knowledge that people might be carrying concealed weapons with them.

That's the myth, but you could argue the exact oppposite: I think people would get a lot bolder, more impatient, and ruder knowing they have a concealed gun on their waist to back them up.

Again, this logic fails when you look at the reality. I have found unarmed NYC residents to be far more bold/impatient/rude and ready to escalate than the armed residents of NC.

For those who are interested in what the actual data shows, John Lott's work is a great place to start (Tuth, you're a smart cat, you'll appreciate his work and I think it might open your eyes). For the die-hard antigunners who will stick to their emotional arguments (much like the feminists; remember how Andrea Dworkin said that widespread porn would lead to an explosion of rape? Didn't happen, huh? Just the opposite.) with disregard to the data, carry on.

As for the notion of banning guns, look at Mexico. Law abiding citizens cannot own firearms. Yet the criminals are heavily armed. So much so that the police are scared. Same for Rio. Ever been to the favelas? The police cannot go there without military style gear.

Guns are the great equalizer, and allows the people to defend themselves against the wolves in society. Take the guns away from the citizens and you have nothing but defenseless sheep. The wolves, who care not about your laws, will find guns, and if they cannot, will use whatever they can get their hands on. Look at the UK and knives.

People have been killing people since the dawn of man. That is never going to change. All you can do is decide whether you want good, honest people to have the ability to defend themselves against the predators.

Post: #112

(07-20-2012 11:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-20-2012 11:26 PM)Enfant_Terrible Wrote:  I think that people will be a lot more careful and respectful with their words and actions if it's common knowledge that people might be carrying concealed weapons with them.

That's the myth, but you could argue the exact oppposite: I think people would get a lot bolder, more impatient, and ruder knowing they have a concealed gun on their waist to back them up.

I think it could go either way and depends a lot on cultural values and other pressures, eg chivalry. In say, LA where guns proliferated in communities with no leaders, no fathers, and dysfunctional culture no one else cares about or wants anything to do with, you get gang warfare and widespread misery. On the other hand, most police departments do not have a problem with cop-on-cop violence.

This is partly why there is such a disconnect on gun control in the US. What works for one subculture doesn't for another.

Post: #113

Quote:So are you suggesting that we walk around suited up in body armor and carry automatic weapons every time we leave the house? In a state like Colorado citizens can easily obtain guns, so your argument makes no sense to me.

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that rare situations like this are a risk you have to take to live in a mostly safe, gun-free society that is part of a world where guns do, in fact, exist and can be obtained if the will is great enough. It is not an excuse for more gun control, it is not an excuse for less gun control. It's a tragedy and there's probably not a whole lot that could have been done to prevent it. Track down how he got these weapons, maybe patch up any obvious holes he may have exploited, maybe figure out what it was in his psychology that caused him to go unhinged. That's about it.

Post: #114

Oh, someone asked whether AR15s are legal. Yes, semiautomatic AR-15 rifles are legal in most states. If you are ever in my neck of the woods in NC, send me a PM, and I'll take you shooting. Only warning is that once you shoot one of these things, you will likely become infected with evil black rifle disease and develop an intense craving to acquire one for yourself.

The media call these firearms "assault rifles". This is a deliberate, fear inducing, misnomer. Assault rifles, by definition are select fire, meaning they have two fire modes - semiautomatic and automatic or burst. The AR in AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle, but for Armalite Rifle, which is the company that designed the AR15 model which the US military would adopt as the M16 just before the Vietnam War. Decades later, this was modified to include a collapsible stock and a shorter barrel, and was renamed the M4. Amongst civilians, AR15 is sort of a catchall to describe all rifles and carbines based on Eugene Stoner's original AR-15 design.

On a side note, these are easy to put together (if you can build Legos, you can put together an AR15) and loads of fun to customize. It's no accident that they are referred to as "Barbie for men".

Post: #115

GOA breaks down myth that gun control has reduced crime rates in other countries.

Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."

After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted."

And so on.

Post: #116

It's sad, but these kids who run around blasting people are not killing them with the gun itself, but the anger and psychotic rage that they have.

Someone had to set them off which caused them to use that negative energy on others. Thats how people die man. They bring each other down each day.

Banning gun laws won't do shit. It really won't. That heartless bastard locked in everyone's heart will always find a way to get someone.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Post: #117

This country has and always will be a "belief" before it is a Country. When people think of America it was "Work hard and you'll live a middle class lifestyle with nice kids" that shit is dead.

I think the point of this is since we INSULT AND SHAME other countries no one realizes there is a way out. The majority of people don't even leave the USA because its "the best" so why even bother checking a new place out? This mindset is nonsense.

At the end of the day this type of frustration should increase more and more over time. Everything rises to the top. If for some reason you are not rising towards the top 5% or so you should seriously consider leaving the country, this is the only way to prevent the downward spiral of depression and rage.

Getting by in America is much less fun than getting by in a foreign country

It is unfortunate but true.

I wish there was a way to send out the message of finding a different way to everyone. The problem is no one will believe this mindset since everyone is shaped by their past... which has been predicted by the media which has been shaming them for 20+ years or more.

Post: #118

(07-21-2012 10:19 AM)assman Wrote:  As for the notion of banning guns, look at Mexico. Law abiding citizens cannot own firearms. Yet the criminals are heavily armed. So much so that the police are scared. Same for Rio. Ever been to the favelas? The police cannot go there without military style gear.

How many mass murders have occurred in Mexico?

(07-21-2012 10:19 AM)assman Wrote:  Guns are the great equalizer, and allows the people to defend themselves against the wolves in society. Take the guns away from the citizens and you have nothing but defenseless sheep. The wolves, who care not about your laws, will find guns, and if they cannot, will use whatever they can get their hands on. Look at the UK and knives.

How many mass killings have been done by some cat bringing out his Stanley knife in the UK and begin swinging on the screaming crowd?

Why even bother with police then if every person should have the right to defend themselves? What are police even there for if every Joe Schmoe is fully armed?

Post: #119

On AdultFriendFinder it appears he is listed as "“ClassicJimbo" living in Aurora, CO

Personal bio quote is “Will you visit me in prison?”

Still determining if this is a hoax or real. The woman's head behind him looks photoshopped.

source

Post: #120

(07-21-2012 01:53 PM)Moma Wrote:  Why even bother with police then if every person should have the right to defend themselves? What are police even there for if every Joe Schmoe is fully armed?

When the United States was born, there was no police. Citizens would arrest criminals themselves and bring them to the local jail or courthouse and hold trial.

There was never any mass shootings of the sort back then.

The only role of the police is to create an impartial third party to enforce laws; but the problem is if the laws themselves become abusive.

Post: #121

Where there are strict gun control laws and people want to kill a lot of people, they just use bombs. Where guns are illegal, only criminals have them or knives are used. Mass killings are mostly a product of government, either war, false flags, or opposition groups. Usually, it is political, and I find it suspect that the UN small arms treaty is up for a vote right now. Who knows? Who benefits? Maybe he is just a lone nutcase.

I hope the treaty gets rejected, and we don't have the police state expanded into our movie theaters, malls, etc. Sad times for America and those affected in Colorado.

Post: #122

(07-21-2012 03:03 PM)durangotang Wrote:  Where there are strict gun control laws and people want to kill a lot of people, they just use bombs. Where guns are illegal, only criminals have them or knives are used. Mass killings are mostly a product of government, either war, false flags, or opposition groups. Usually, it is political, and I find it suspect that the UN small arms treaty is up for a vote right now. Who knows? Who benefits? Maybe he is just a lone nutcase.

I hope the treaty gets rejected, and we don't have the police state expanded into our movie theaters, malls, etc. Sad times for America and those affected in Colorado.

This...

Post: #123

(07-21-2012 01:53 PM)Moma Wrote:  Why even bother with police then if every person should have the right to defend themselves? What are police even there for if every Joe Schmoe is fully armed?

You can't be serious.

The police will almost NEVER get there in time. They are useful for taking reports, collecting evidence, drawing chalk lines and investigating AFTER THE FACT.

In Aurora, police arrived 60-90 seconds after they were dispatched. Yet 71 people were shot. And average police response time is MUCH worse than that. And this assumes one has the opportunity to call the police, which isn't always the case.

When you only have seconds,the police are just minutes away.

Post: #124

Quote:In the days ahead I'm sure it will come out that this guy was socially awkward

Again, Roosh is spot on:

the guy turns out to be a socially awkward, nerdy loner, awkwardly gone nuts...

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2012/07/...-and-over/

Post: #125

It always amazes me that people think easy access to guns has nothing to do with the FREQUENCY and OUTCOME of murders. Think about it this way: if you can only find fast food around, odds are high you will get more fat people. If only candy in the stores instead of veggies, more teeth problems. If guns are on sale on the internet, an absurd shooting is what you are MORE LIKELY to get.

It's all explainable with the little rule: more availability, more crazy shootings.

period.