I'm fairly sure those kids and teachers who come face to face with an armed nutter feel something approaching fucking terrified.

So what do you consider to be the difference?

Most every victim of a crime feels terrified.  Imagine if your wife, daughter, sister or friend were raped - that is a pretty terrifying experience.  If you have ever been the first person that a woman stumbles to after that experience, I can tell you first hand they have been through a lot.

Is it a really bad crime - yes.
Does your mind wander into revenge mode - yes
Is it terrorism - no
Is it a so called "hate crime" - no

For the most part, the very few school shootings that have occurred have been crimes of revenge against bullying.  No one wants to say that out loud, but it is true.  Unfortunately, there were innocent victims involved as well, which speaks to the larger reason that bullying needs to be controlled much more closely in middle and high schools.

Were these killings a really bad crime - yes
Is it terrorism - no

Terrorism is part of a larger war effort between two groups, typically governments or some type of at least semi-defined organization.  An attack is meant to cause not only the immediate damage, but longer term damage to the economy.

In some ways, you could label things as:
- If the "good guys" bomb someone, that is called "helping to bring peace, freedom, and democracy to a region
- If the "bad buys - whoever was bombed by the good guys" bomb someone, especially in a first world city, that is called terrorism.

Prosecutors and newspapers are always looking for a slick label to slap on people and events.  I am not condoning any of this behavior, I am just saying that if people start thinking that being robbed is equivalent to a war, then we end up putting a hair trigger on calling out the military.  It is a big step to call in a military solution, as their job is to not mess around.



 

Well that clarifies it, you're definitely not aware of the impact.

It's a shame, because I'm already pretty certain you're going to ignore what I've written - not going to give any of it any real thought because you're convinced you have it right and wont accept you've been conditioned as much as the people that listen to CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.

Still I'm a stubborn optimist, so what the hell...

 

>the [132 in the past decade] school shootings have been crimes of revenge against bullying. No one wants to say that out loud, but it is true

Yeah, a bit like when the bigger countrystudent beats you up and takes your oillunch over and over, and with your slightly odd friend whispering in your ear, you decide you've had enough and go batshit crazy.

If others get caught up in your retaliation, well, they never stopped the bully, never showed compassion or helped you up, they're obviously just as guilty.

(Of course, it's not really like that at all.)

> An attack is meant to cause not only the immediate damage, but longer term damage to the economy.

You know this because you've planned all the attacks? Or have had signed confessions from the perpetrators? Maybe you've written a thesis on the subject and have a whole swathe of research which enables you to discover this perfect truth?

> Terrorism is part of a larger war effort between two groups ...

Terrorism is a buzz word these days. Your attempted definition is no more or less valid than the other.

Stop worrying about that. If you care to, investigate and examine what's behind the word. See if you can figure out which bits of what you think you know are wrong and work out how to fix that, whilst accepting that some of those solutions will be mistakes that too need fixing.

Or, you know, just ignore me. I clearly know fuck all about anything and am not worth listening to.

I think Harry has a point though. My understanding of terrorism is that it's meant to intimidate a population into change - very few of the US school shootings seem motivated like that. They've had plenty of mass shootings in other places that are, still.

I think you make some well reasoned statements many of which I agree with (particularly regarding the strength of banks). However, Id be interested to hear why you think most schools shootings are for reasons other than revenge (in which I would include feelings of disenfranchisement) against bullying. Why do you feel they occur?   

I think, though the phrasing is awkward, that he is saying the majority of them are indeed for revenge. For some reason also saying "the very few" in there to imply there aren't actually many school shootings at all. Which I suppose is one of those "relative to what?" questions because I'd say there's been loads of them in the last decade.

Yeah, my understanding is that terrorism involves something-like political motivations. Not *necessarily* a desire to force change but at least a *politically* grounded discontentment.

I think people labelling school shootings as terrorism is in response to the situation where any violence by Muslims tends to get labelled as terrorism and some white terrorism is not labelled as such. Imo it muddies the waters though.

I appreciate what you are trying to be subtle about in your words, and your self control in how you are posting it.

It is useful to recall that most of the "old wealth money" in the UK and a good chunk of the EU was obtained with pretty heavy hands during the colonial era, so neither of us can really throw stones about this.  Similar to today, most people didn't really benefit from this, just a few.

My main point is that the concerns you have about US policy and how things get trampled on will not really change substantially by who is elected President of the US.  Even if it were the case that this was actually important, the vote of a substantial portion of the electorate is nearly irrelevant.

There are some states that nearly always will vote Dem or Rep, and in most cases, this means that the entire electoral vote for that state goes to that candidate. In only a handful of states can this needle be moved enough to make a change.

In my own case, by the time the primary elections reach California, the candidate selection for each party is more or less completed.  In the main presidential election, I can vote for any candidate I want very freely and without concern, because CA will vote Dem no matter what.

Since I travel quite a bit in my work, I have tended to vote by mail.  It turns out that for nearly 20 years, the county vote counters never even opened these ballots and just said "statistically, they probably voted like everyone else, so there is no need to open them."  Fortunately, this changed in the past few years, but it was kind of annoying.

 

Yes, you are correct, I am saying that the majority appear to be revenge related, and the total is not very many, which of course is a good thing.  Yes this is just my own personal opinion based on reading everything I could find on the subject, not only from our own local news sources, but also international web news, psychological analysis of professionals, and some other information sources I have.

I agree that I am not an expert in this area, even if I think I know what I am talking about.
 

Actually, the main reason that I am posting on this forum is that I am thinking about using Beehive forum s/w for a sort of small company communications, not to talk politics.  If anyone would like to look at the thread I started on this topic area and maybe comment on some of the questions in my long winded first post, that would really be appreciated.

That was the point I was trying to make. Just because they're Muslim doesn't mean it's terrorism/politically motivated. When the white Christians shoot a place up and talk about God it doesn't seem to be considered terrorism, but when the brown Muslims do the same it is instantly terrorism.

You're welcome to continue contributing, another opposing voice is appreciated.

'sactly.

I think revenge against bullying *may be* a factor in *some* of the domestic US mass shootings, but unquestionably the main factor is the ubiquity and easy access to guns. I believe that terrorism is indeed a motivation underlying the staging of these spectacular acts, clearly intended to garner as much publicity as possible. The US needs to look at gun culture as an extremely dangerous and insidious form of terrorism within American society that thus far has inflicted far more death and destruction than any external threat.

I'd like to see your face on that one. I don't think I have ever heard a bigger bullshite statement in my life. So let's see your source on that whopper. Last mass shooting I remember God being mentioned, the shooter targeted Christians.

Daft.

You need to read about some real studies on threat-assessment data instead of making crap up in your mind.

Ah yes, It appears I misread, my mistake :)

I think it's only fair that I read up on some mass-shootings, this might take a few days because there's loads. I'm looking specifically at 2015 mass shootings.

I've only read info on the last 7 of 2015 so far. Already it's clear that I'm so glad there's only a small amount of guns over here because 6 of those look like shootings due to petty arguments, including a shooting at a vigil of a shooting?!?!?!?

The other one was a hate crime targeting gay people, I am going to label that as religious.

Maybe I need a spreadsheet, but the trend so far does look like arguments and shootings at bars. No guns would just result in a bit of fisticuffs and people going on their way, not bullet wounds.

I agree that you should read up and also that there's loads. Problem is, the statistics - without arguing about the fact that there are a lot of them, which is beyond dispute - are skewed because of bias or positioning.

I'll be glad to continue the discussion, but I am not sure the Dump Trump thread is the best place for it. There's so much more ammo available for Trump, we are sidetracking and hijacking that discussion.
 

I'd disagree with that unless it can be proved that the targeting is from a pure religious standpoint; most violent opposition of gays doesn't stem from religious people unless they are liars. Truly religious people dislike the "sin" (as they view it from their particular standpoint or religious flavour) but love the "sinner" nonetheless. I put sin and sinner in quotes to separate from my particular viewpoint and make it generic.
 

I guess it depends where the data comes from, and what is used to determine the parameters. In the U.S., a mass shooting is defined at 4 or more injuries or deaths, not including the shooter. I think you are going to find it a difficult slog, because [your] conclusion of fisticuffs being the only result discounts the possibility of stabbings, blunt object use, knives, bottles, strangulation, high heels used as a weapon (a woman killed her boyfriend with her killer heels); lack of bullet wounds is not better in the terms of overall violence, but I would assume you are going to use that to support your theory that all guns should be outlawed.

I'll state again, it isn't going to happen in the U.S., no matter how impassioned a the plea made or the data gathered. No one is taking my guns, period.

What may happen, though, is a better effort made at determining who is at risk for perpetrating violent acts, mass or otherwise. They do it because they are delusional, ignored - generally social outcasts who feel like they don't matter or nobody likes them.

I mentioned once before that over 60% of gun deaths in this country are suicides. Sometimes this number gets buried in the statistics when people are trying to make the point that guns should be outlawed. Well, I have known a half a dozen people at least who committed suicide, out of them only one killed himself with a gun. One hung himself, three girls took overdoses and one drank himself to death. The guy who killed himself with the gun tried to drink himself to death, but it didn't work. I suspect had he not had a gun he would have found another way, because he was severely depressed and his family ignored him; I was too far away from him to be of any help, and I am sorry to say that I didn't realise his family would turn their backs on him after I told them that Brook was not well.

I think you are going to have to look at a more broad spectrum of data than 2015, unfortunately.





 

Entering into the first two stages of the primary elections, I can't help but look at some candidate strengths and weaknesses as they enter Iowa and New Hampshire.  Of course this is just my own, amateur opinion, but I did grow up in the midwest, and I lived in IA for a few years while in college.

The IA caucus is not a general voters primary, it is very much a strange, old fashion town hall meeting style, chaotic event, with great organizing in the background.  This organizing effort actually is more important than how people intend to vote when they go there.

Trump Strengths (as they related to the IA caucus system)
- Wall street hates him, so this makes him interesting to people in IA, as they don't really like people from NY and especially from wall street.
- The people of IA tend to be moderates and while religious, not so verbal about their religion like people from the south (Cruz )
- People in IA feel pretty screwed over by both parties, so there is no love for the party extremes.
- He has not taken any money from the Koch brothers
- His team is well organized and really understands high tech marketing
- He says that he is pro - second amendment


Trump Weakness
- He is from NY, and honestly, that is a huge liability for any candidate running for President in any state - except NY
- He is a bit of an open bully, and this does always go over that well
- He has openly complained about workers making too much money
- People are not entirely sure that he is really pro second amendment