Skip to comments.The Theater Shooter Is Caught, but the Real Joker Keeps Laughing
Posted on 07/24/2012 4:53:32 PM PDT by No One Special
Why is it that in the previous decades, when life was tougher, weapons were widespread, and the ratio of mental disorders was presumably the same, mass shootings were unheard of? Some would say that those people had not yet been corrupted by moral relativism, desensitized by Hollywood's fantasy violence and glorification of crime, or addicted to gory point-and-shoot videogames. All valid points -- yet one major reason hardly gets any notice.
The set of rules for war are different from the set of rules for peace. Wars have always been brutal and soul-sapping; while killing was the norm, there have also been rules to spare innocent civilians. The inhuman murder of a random group of defenseless innocents for no other reason than murder itself was never a part of war -- let alone of peace. What has changed in our 2,000-year-old Western civilization that makes it possible?
Admittedly, the major driving force of cultural change is the education system. Until recently, no generation of young Americans has been exposed to such a massive, centrally planned indoctrination based on the dehumanizing, soul-sapping "progressive" ideology. Accordingly, never before have students dropped out of school in such large numbers, with so confusing and conflicting views of the world and their place and purpose in it, with blurred perceptions of right and wrong, and infected with what I like to call "secondhand envy" and "phantom grievances" (which is similar to the Marxist concept of false consciousness, only not as far-fetched).
The radical "progressive" ideology (a broad term embracing many offshoots of Marxism) dehumanizes people more effectively than any violent point-and-shoot video game ever could. It pits various groups of people against one another by cultivating envy and grievances that are mostly imaginary and secondhand.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Why is it that in the previous decades, when life was tougher, weapons were widespread, and the ratio of mental disorders was presumably the same, mass shootings were unheard of?”
If the answer to that wasn’t so obvious to the author that he’d be embarrassed to ask it then, he doesn’t have anything to offer the field of thought.
Today, we don't have that. There is no "wilderness" for society's "misfits" to go. Their societal rage builds up and they pop, go "postal".
OK, it was for a psychology class and it was just a theory, but it kinda' makes sense, eh?
The piece shoots itself in the head with a .50 browning in the first sentence. Sadly, if there were ever a time when The American Thinker had more fact checkers than The New York Times, it is long gone.
There have ALWAY been mass shootings now and then.
The overall premise dies before being born, aborted by the stupid and indefensible opening sentence.
There was a time when all the men and a few of the women in that theater would have done either a concealed carry or an open carry. Most of them would have been good enough shots to dispatch this shooter, too. - These types of Jokers would know it (they did back then, too) and it would have served as a deterrent. If the next Joker gets shot directly in the gas mask, that’ll stop it for a long while.
Whoa, tough crowd here tonight, LOL.
I understand the theater specifically asked patrons not to use conceal carry. There were signs advising of this.
You may well be right, but I came of age in the 1950s and I cannot recall any mass shootings during that time. Maybe there were and my memory is fauly. The first one I can recall occurring was in the early 1960s, that of the guy in Texas who placed himself in a college tower and randomly shot people with a rifle until the police shot him dead.
Not when you think of the Unibomber...
This has always been the liberal anti-military mantra, which actually allows liberal progressives to create their own self-fulfilling prophecies of atrocity.
Nearly every military war on record has always had vastly more civilian casualties than military casualties.
This is why war zones are characterized by 10 - 100 times more refugees than combatants. 5 armed men will cause 50-500 unarmed people to vacate their homes. 50 armed men can displace 500-5000 unarmed people.
People don't naturally abandon their families, livelihoods, homes, and possessions except where the alternatives are obviously and directly much worse. Even where a glimmer of hope remains, the human affection and hope will drive people to remain in their homeland. When they voluntarily displace, it is for a reason, which isn't good. It's also why they take up arms and go to war, risking their lives to return to their homes, even if re-established elsewhere.
The only times civilians are spared from combat or harm's way is if in a war of attrition their numbers are less important than maneuvering enemy forces, but they also are used as human shields with impunity.
IMHO, the difference in cultures is far greater attributed to a smaller population living through and by faith in Christ. Virtue is not as prevalent and more mature minds were less degenerate when they had arisen from within the ranks of believers. Even with less worldly power, they had greater virtue to overcome the more worldly adversaries.
Liberals have never met a tyrant they didn’t love...which is why they are so dangerous.
Ray Lahood was just less careful than his cohorts in the administration. He let slip what they all believe.
What was the first successful self-loading military rifle? Any idea?
The USA has murdered 60,000,000 unborn babies.
We have hardened our hearts.
Depends on the definition of “successful”, in my book I would say the M-1 Garand which George Patton praised so highly. Just an opinion of course.
That’s true, and a great lesson we forget at our peril.
Depends on how you define successful, I suppose. First invention beyond a working prototype? Of first wide introduction to a military? Probably the Thompson SMG (not a rifle, but a long arm none the less), or the Garand and or the M1 carbine. Archy will know!
Now that took real talent!
I think that I read[or heard] that both the BAR and Thompson were developed toward the end of WWI. The BAR to augment the firepower of the rifle squads and the Thompson for trench fighting.
“And the will to use it”
That is Obamas main goal, to remove the “will” of the people.
Currently about the only real “will” in America is when neighborhoods get upset when a gang member is shot.
Case in point in headlines: Anaheim
Now however if there was a way to fuel patriotism in American perhaps we should all become part of a gang, one gets shot and then you get an armed nation royally pissed off.
Bizzarroland meets Disneyland.
Thanks! The wife helped. She gave the idea for the dripping blood. It’s an amalgamation of various images I’ve seen on the subject.
I heard the legal expert on Fox and Friends this morning say that in Colorado the death penalty does NOT apply when the accused had anger or hatred during a criminal act.
Is this a valid statement?
If so, then the real “Joker” is the State Government of Colorado.
BTW, IF no one is perfect, and you are No One, THEN you are perfect, and that makes you special.
China has taught Amerika well, because we also have only 3 people who make decisions:
1.) Creepy, commie, Kenyan Dictator “You Lie” Obama;
2.) US Senate Majority Leader “Bottleneck” Harry Reid;
3.) and Chief Justice of the Supreme Tax Court, Traitor John Roberts.
“I understand the theater specifically asked patrons not to use conceal carry. There were signs advising of this.”
- That’s nice. Too bad the shooter ignored the signs. Criminals tend to ignore gun laws, too. I hate it when they do that.
The Thompson might be correct though I was thinking more of the standard troop rifle.
Of course, archy would know the nuts and bolts.
Lol. perfect logic ;-)
When that shooting started a student ran to his car and got out a 22 rifle and started to shoot back at the gunman. The student kept the gunman’s head down until the cops shot him.(the bad guy)
Depends on how you define the term, of course. The Danish Navy used some of the Madsen Model 1896 semi-auto rifles, later developed into the Madsen machine rifle. The first more-or-less successful combat use of a semiauto was as an aircraft weapon, back in the WWI days when aviators took potshots at each other with handguns. Propellor synchronisation of belt-fed MGs firing through the propellor arc [eventually perfected and technically, initially a semi-auto firing cycle tripped by lobes on the propellor shaft] had not yet come along and the Germans had about enough of the more sporting aspects of aerial warfare. Enter their contribution to that subset of military science, the Swiss SIG-manufactured version of the Mexican Mondragon M1908 semiauto rifle in the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge, known to the Germans as the Flieger-Selbstlader-Karabiner 15.
So far as the first semi-auto weapon to effectively replace the manually operated infantry weapon that preceeded it, that would be Mr. John Garand's wonderful device, the M1 rifle, following initial US Ordnance efforts to turn out a semiauto version of the M1903 Springfield, which included semiauto conversions of the Swiss M1911 straightpull rifle and, eventually, Pedersen's semiauto design that introduced the en-bloc clip-fed magazine of the Garand, initially a 10-round device utilizing Pedersen's .276 cartridge, but very nicely adapted to the .30 M2 and .30 M1 cartridge versions of the .30 calibre cartridge of 1906.
I'm pretty good with the nuts, at least....
When you’re taught that humanity is an accident of chance and environment, then what’s wrong with shooting a few of them? Especially when there will be no eternal consequences.
Yes, I've seen signs like that, though I tend to pay little attention to them.
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
I'm pretty good with the nuts, at least....
Yes. Yes you are. Thanks once again for sharing your knowledge. Have a great weekend!