Manhunt On for Road Rage Shooter

[yiostheoy]

Zackly. I've never seen a snail invent a gun.

Hermaphrodites unite! So to speak....

Well you would need to interview the unknown anonymous Chinese inventor of the first gun --

"Mr. Chin, what were you thinking when you invented the first gun?"

"Well, I was fokking my wife and thinking about the azzole I hate who lives down the road and I got an idea all at once !!"

 

[yiostheoy]

...guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".

...

"Guns" is a word that comes from a Germanic/Gothic girl's name "Gunnilda". Some Goth named his catapult Gunnilda.

Guns has stuck ever since.

 

[Ringel05]

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........

I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.

Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?

 

[Ringel05]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

 

[2aguy]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.

The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...

AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...

Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....

 

[2aguy]

I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.

Of course the flaw in the implied comparison is that guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".

Cars only do harm accidentally, like most things.

They call cigarettes the only product that when used as designed and intended, kills the user. But even cigarettes aren't deliberately designed to do that.

A truck was used to intentionally harm 489 people in Nice, France....89 were murdered, another 400 injured.....

Pulse night club.....49 people murdered...it was a gun free zone where only the killer had a gun....

 

[Ringel05]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.

The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...

AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...

Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....

That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.

 

[Pogo]

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........

I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.

Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?

To track this back to where it started the question of "what shoots?" came from here:

It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

"It" here refers to my observation that the Bob Costas commentary about gun culture was insistently and persistently (and universally) mischaracterized as a commentary about gun control, which it clearly and provably was not.

This in turn, shows us something about those persistent insistent mischaracterizers. That is, that they are in fact driven by the very fetish described in the commentary. Which, in turn, disproves your assertion that "it doesn't prove a glorification of guns". Clearly, it does prove just that. Were firearms not the recipient of the very idolatry described, no one would make the leap to the defensive, i.e. trying to call it "gun control" --- which is a deflection because they don't want to address the real issue, that of the social value which IS what the commentary was all about.

Needles to say I get the same reaction here even though I've never advocated "gun control" and have opined repeatedly that throwing laws at it won't work. Same dynamic.

I often draw the comparison with the practice of smoking. After it was heavily marketed coming out of World War One, smoking was commonplace if not quite universal. It was expected, because its value was "cool". We turned that around without any significant "cigarette control". You can point to laws about selling cigarettes to minors or no-smoking areas but redesigning public social values is what made it "uncool". I think social mores are a far more influential force than throwing laws at something.

We did dramatically drop the prevalence of the practice of smoking. We didn't do that by throwing laws at it; we did it by diminishing its social value. For one thing, and an apt comparison ---- you don't see everyday people smoking in the movies or television anymore, unless they're the bad guy. The nasty rapist thief murderer gangster might smoke but he'll be one of the few. Ward Cleaver does not light up any more.

That was a powerful psychological tool when Ward Cleaver did light up and it served the smoking culture.

By contrast, you still DO see the "good guy with a gun" on literally any scan of the TV dial and any movie house. See where I'm going here?

 

[2aguy]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.

The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...

AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...

Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....

That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.

Sorry....there is research out there that shows children from single female headed households are more likely to be involved in crime and end up in poverty......deny it......by you are wrong...

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime

The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched. Few experts, including Cohen, dispute this. Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you'd have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother's education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

 

[Pogo]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

 

[Ringel05]

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........

I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.

Uummmm, I was under the assumption that we were discussing the so called gun culture and naturally concluded your "guns shoot" as part of your argument hence my responses to the perceived association to your argument........ Was that incorrect? Had the conversation changed without my knowledge?

To track this back to where it started the question of "what shoots?" came from here:

It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

"It" here refers to my observation that the Bob Costas commentary about gun culture was insistently and persistently (and universally) mischaracterized as a commentary about gun control, which it clearly and provably was not.

This in turn, shows us something about those persistent insistent mischaracterizers. That is, that they are in fact driven by the very fetish described in the commentary. Which, in turn, disproves your assertion that "it doesn't prove a glorification of guns". Clearly, it does prove just that. Were firearms not the recipient of the very idolatry described, no one would make the leap to the defensive, i.e. trying to call it "gun control" --- which is a deflection because they don't want to address the real issue, that of the social value which IS what the commentary was all about.

Needles to say I get the same reaction here even though I've never advocated "gun control" and have opined repeatedly that throwing laws at it won't work. Same dynamic.

I often draw the comparison with the practice of smoking. After it was heavily marketed coming out of World War One, smoking was commonplace if not quite universal. It was expected, because its value was "cool". We turned that around without any significant "cigarette control". You can point to laws about selling cigarettes to minors or no-smoking areas but redesigning public social values is what made it "uncool". I think social mores are a far more influential force than throwing laws at something.

This in turn, shows us something about those persistent insistent mischaracterizers. That is, that they are in fact driven by the very fetish described in the commentary. Which, in turn, disproves your assertion that "it doesn't prove a glorification of guns"

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack, the same reason some attack you as your argument is seen by some to be a round about approval of 'gun control'. Your problem is you're being to literal in your observation/conclusion by not recognizing/acknowledging the underlying psychological/emotive reaction/response mechanisms. You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers. If I were to classify it as a culture I would classify it as a 'constitutional culture' based on real or perceived (your choice) inalienable rights.

 

[Ringel05]

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.

The main problem .....single teenage girls having multiple children from multiple males without a husband living in the home, an adult male who is there to teach the young males how to be civilized....you have this problem here, and in Britain....these young males growing up in homes headed by single teenage girls are not learning impulse control...that is the problem...

AWR Hawkins, the 2nd Amendment writer for Breitbart has it right....he said it is a self control problem, not a gun control problem...

Until we address broken homes with single teenage girls raising young males you aren't going to solve the problem....and guns aren't the issue....

That is one factor but not specifically the primary factor as your overarching claim has no basis in science though it does have a strong basis in political rhetoric.

Sorry....there is research out there that shows children from single female headed households are more likely to be involved in crime and end up in poverty......deny it......by you are wrong...

The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime

The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched. Few experts, including Cohen, dispute this. Studies cannot prove conclusively that fatherlessness—or any other factor—actually causes people to commit crimes. For that, you'd have to do the impossible: take a large group of infants and raise each of them simultaneously in two precisely equivalent households—except one would be headed by a father and mother and the other by a lone mother. But by comparing criminals of the same race, education, income, and mother's education whose primary observable difference is family structure, social scientists have come as close as they can to making the causal case with the methodological tools available.

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it was only an overarching conclusion within the realm of political rhetoric. If it was as overarching as you claim then violent crime would be tenfold what is is today.

 

[Ringel05]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.

 

[Eloy]

>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.


When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.

“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”

More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.

Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.

.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or detectives@westgoshen.org.

“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com​

He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.

But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".



theHawk

Where did the faded red pickup driver get a gun, it must be asked.

 

[Pogo]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

 

[Pogo]

>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.


When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.

“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”

More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.

Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.

.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or detectives@westgoshen.org.

“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com​

He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.

But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".



theHawk

Where did the faded red pickup driver get a gun, it must be asked.

Meh --- I don't think it matters. Legally or illegally, anyone who wants a gun can get one. I consider that a given.

The point from where I sit is not "where" one gets a gun, but "why". That's the far more relevant question, since without a "why" there is no "where".

Interesting that we spend so much time and energy parsing the "where" and the "what kind" and "who's qualified" and so little time on the "why" other than the standard parroted emotional memes.

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

 

[Eloy]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?

 

[Pogo]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.