You made a general point, I made a point about your reply to Trump's poor reaction to the event. Just as my post may appear as a poor reply to your post, yours has similar flaws too.
First of all, my reply to Trump's poor reaction to the event? Interesting, which sentence exactly? I could as well disregard everything behind that first sentence... But, I am going paragraph by paragraph, not reading whole post before that. So, let's see where this goes.
Let me get this down now. Your proposition that an idea/modus operandi will disappear--to some extent--with the prompt death of the offenders is a question for a psychiatrist/criminologist which I'm not able to refute nor approve.
Well yeah, many of them are probably not fixable, so it's a dangerous leech on society that already showed what it is capable of. Kind of confused by putting psychiatrist next to criminologist, so I am uncertain if you meant psychologist, psychiatrist, criminologist, criminal psychologist or someone completely else. You can check out all of those fields, but I think you meant criminal psychologist in place of both you named. Now, in terms of supporting idea of quickly removing AND not talking about such cases. To keep it most simple and not going too much into both elements: fame media gives (I know, from sane person's perspective it doesn't sound like a fame, but for those fucks it is) to all those killers and shooters is a damn
reward. They see it, they want it. For more refer to Albert Bandura and Nigel Barber. But without that fame and quickly removed and forgotten, there is
no reward.
You don't have to approve, you do not posses enough influence to do. Neither do I. Research however shows us enough.
However I tend to believe that medias will always satisfy the citizen perverse curiosity towards "evil" wether that evil is alive or dead (or "out" to use your words), thus making even prompt death not the end of the story. That would be a very sane idea when fighting a specific ideology like ISIS' where you want to take out the heads as quickly as possible. But there isn't a headquarter of mass shooters to give ideas to copycats so the same correlation doesn't apply. I fail see more than this so I didn't said you were wrong and I am in fact neutral to your idea--not being able to refute your idea properly, not being convinced either. However Trump clearly try to rouse people with the idea of death as a punishment so I felt like I should not press you to convince me on that point because that felt like off-topic. I instead gave you my take on the topic. That may be inconsiderate and not very open-minded on my part, I admit, but I gave you my reason.
You are very correct on media perversion with such stories just to have something to shout about. This is the mentioned fame,
a reward. Again, correct on removing main heads of terrorist organizations to cause chaos and speeding up removing process (which in itself is very complicated and unfortunately not as easy). You sure there isn't? You just pointed it out yourself. How do copycats learn about it? See, this is where it starts. Best outcome would be to report on topic and let it die out. Instead, many media outlets prefer to talk about it until it's completely dried out, making it of worthy
reward. Or even more harsher, to media having a topic to blab about is more important than possible loss in human life. Your life, your family, my, mine family and everyone else, doesn't matter, got the story. Shit indeed.
I completely ignored that video, as with every politician, he will just say shit, just like media, two worthy morons of each other. His actions I will gladly judge, words are mainly used to gain/loss support as it is with politicians.
Again, do not care if you agree with me or not, I see an argument and if I know something about, I may agree or disagree giving counterargument, I may not even say anything depending on topic. Again x2, my first response wasn't to you directly, seems like you can't see it other way because I quoted you directly, but it is as I stated. If you want a direct response, it would be only first sentence about Trump vs MSM and then second post, then this one.
Well, I ignored the second paragraph about guns because I was more interested about death penalty. I read, I understood, but didn't bother replying because that would most likely lead to a dead end. This was not a personal attack against you. I was even surprised at how you suddenly shifted the topic to the uselessness of gun ban before that topic was brought up. If I'm going to shake your believes about guns then yes, that would be a personal attack against you. I don't know you and how you actually feel about guns but I chose to not write something that may bother you if you didn't bother me either. Now, let's do that, and see if it was better left unsaid:
Let's start with the context: in the video, Trump said the incident wouldn't have ended the same (catastrophic way?) with armed guard(s). I know that you didn't speak of that and that's kind of the issue here, stick with me until the end.
I'm fine with guns as a whole. Funny though, your holstered gun won't help when a guy with a hidden knife or similar object gets close (5-10m/16-32ft) and stabs you 20 times in the chest. Ask any prison guard. Gun laws are next to it, in some places they make sense, in some they don't, depends on country and you would have to ask about certain place, otherwise the answer will be: "depends". However, getting an illegal gun depends only on your resources, not law.
In the very end, it all traces back to each society itself. Example: In Japan lifting gun ban wouldn't be an issue with many Japanese folks, but it would help criminals that come from other countries. Funny, right?
Okay, I am going to watch that video, let's see. Okay, so it seems, as expected, he says what disgusted by the act people want to hear. Trump, as he did many times, tries to gain a controversial reaction so people talk about it. He targets here few type of communities. Is he correct about additional guards? In theory yes, as that's extra safety. In practice, there could be many issues with this idea. Okay, next we go.
Obviously, guards defend well against attackers. An armed guard would have most likely wasted the offender.
The idea here is to have more guns to arm those guards. This is not a discussion about having less guns and you're wrong to bring the topic with that event.
However something very counter-intuitive will happen if you put guards everywhere. First, I take the bet that those guards are not perfect and can mess up very badly at an extremely low probability.
But the thing is there's also an extremely low probability of attack to each location (hopefully the US is not a battlefield).
What will happen--and was counterintuitive--is that the individual guards messing up would be close to the offender attacking a specific location. Thus the guards Trump want to place are a bad idea. The best analogy with this phenomenon would be the false positives that happens with medical tests for rare diseases.
I respect your faith in guns and chose not to speak against it. However, I don't appreciate how you "generalized" on that event.
Depends on number of guards and many other circumstances. What if criminal took a child as hostage? It's a very effective shield and it's highly doubtful a guard would shoot at him.
You are certain that's the idea? I watched the video and he never said a word about bringing more guns. Armed guards - yes, death penalty for the act - yes. But you are free to give a timestamp in video provided, you can watch it as many times as you wish. By your own words, this is not a discussion about having less or more guns and you are wrong to bring the topic with that event. Now, you could argue that in his full response the topic itself is touched, it however IS NOT in the video provided. If that's the case, please do say so as not everyone follows what some politician says to win next elections.
The thing here is that Trump was more preoccupied about the good guys wining and the bad guys losing than the interest of his citizens. He tried to pass irrelevant ideas while using that specific event. He talked about what could make this incident right--with guards and quick death penalty--while oblivious his generalization could be very, very wrong.
Dear god, please stop, I do not wish to defend a politician... Sigh... First, he said this incident could have gone better if they had protection (ie. armed guard) and the fact this kind of crime deserves a death penalty to not keep such criminal around, as "lawyers will get involved and this and this". Every prisoner of this magnitude (and honestly, all of them) is a strain on society, this is his point. Armed guard in theory could turn the tables in theory, as it is a "maybe". Again, he is literally talking what some people want to hear. You don't like the guy, I don't care about the guy. Difference is, I do not jump the gun because I hate someone, twisting his own words and putting more. You got done by own overreacting because of political views. That's why I don't do it, it clouds the judgment and makes you susceptible to this kind of crap. Ideologies, man.
Considering your post, it seems you are trying way too hard to be right and find fault in others.
That may be only be how I see it and not how you actually think it but that comment on gun ban as well as those sarcasms about how I didn't react to it at first too were very distasteful. You probably see some points in my reply offensive or not really bright and you are free to point them out.
I have been pointed out wrong many times, even by doing research, there are topics I don't know enough about, simply impossible to learn everything. You are correct on finding a fault in other people, I just used your own tactics as it was the route you went with. However, I have been in debates during podcasts shitload of times and just have more experience. Do I try too hard being right? Probably sound like it, but some of my views aren't compatible with common morality, which I will agree, are problematic and hard to get. That technically makes me wrong as it removes major component of human being. Good example would be death penalty - remove the leech, no strain on society. Now, if we add moral problem to it, this makes it more complicated and we really need to establish some threshold to know if society can sentence someone to death for this or other type of crime. Since people care about not having blood on their hands, we try to fix them or keep until they die of old age. Seriously, there is even tons of philosophy in this and definitely wouldn't fit in just few posts.
I am a dick and don't try to hide it in any way, so no, I did not see a single offensive thing. Unless you came to my own house and offended me in person, I highly doubt there is anything that could be done to offend me.
Now, other way around, since you mentioned it... Seems like some things did offend you? Well, happens, welcome to the world. Now, sarcasm aside, the point was to make you look into what I wrote because it seems pointless if you just assume or skip things. Giving a poke that may annoy/anger is a good emotion to achieve exactly that as you may search for anything dumb I said to throw something back, which forces you to think and give your own opinions of how you see things, which I highly appreciate. Can as well give completely opposite effect, depends on need.
