Re: Shootings and Gun laws

Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:10 am

Admin wrote:Shootings in America have been a common occurence since ages. From the University of Texas to the Columbine high school, They all result in equally horrific consequences. There have been multiple cases where the massacres could've been prevented, some lesser than the others, but a plausible scenario nonetheless.
The most recent shooting, which took place in Las Vegas , resulted in the death of more than 50 people and injured 500 more. Stephen Paddock was a 64 year old, wealthy accountant with a girlfriend that described him as "kind and caring" and a brother that could not even digest the fact that his sibling had killed so many people, What went wrong with Mr.Paddock? What could possible have been so scarring that he decided to stockpile 23 guns (all SMG) and concoct an elaborate plan, that would seem very very out of character.
What surprised me the most was his age, unlike people such as Eric Harris and Dylan Kleybold (Columbine shooters) who were teenagers , Why would a man with the experience of Stephen Paddock, decide to go on such a rampage?
Could having stricter gun laws help the situation? Or must something be done to the very root of the problem i.e the psychology of humans.
Please feel free to share your opinion.

Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:09 pm

Well, one plausible trigger (pun intended) could be his Middle East trip, during which he may have been radicalised. Even though police denied that he had connections to ISIS, experts say that such a connection cannot be ruled out. Given the evidence and the statement released by ISIS, claiming him as one of their own, it's hard to think of a theory which may fit all the facts. (I may have missed some facts, guys if y'all have a theory please post it)
Supposing the trigger was not radicalisation, there must be some loss of sanity in his recent past. Maybe he didn't show signs outwardly?

Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:36 pm

Radicalising is a theory. A very strong one might I add. I do not think it's that easy getting radicalised at such an age ...the guy is 64. Either he was radicalised ages ago....with doesn't explain his dormancy and neither does it explain his state of affairs. The loss of sanity is extremely true....it must be late on in his life that such a thing could've happened

Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:01 am

The very fact that a 62 year old man could walk into a 4-star hotel with 23 guns and not drive any attention makes me question the security. Where was the surveillance and why were there no liable security checks? Moreover, why does a common man need weapons? The police and the armed forces protect us decorously. Ban immigrants. Ban Muslims. Ban people from any other countries. But weapons cannot be banned. Why is it this way? Such incidents cannot be stopped. But by imposing stricter rules, at least the possibility of such happenings can come down.
So why did Mr. Stephen Paddock come up with such an idea? Could he have just lost his mind? Or maybe, didn't want to die alone and instead decided to take with him a few more souls. Or maybe, just wanted to create a mark in the world's history (Which he successfully did).
Radicalisation is still a valid opinion to me, as I don't think age is a possible bar for it. It is definitely psychological agony that pushed him to this periphery, but what led into this agony can only be argumented with theories, as the fact is gone with him. Open to all critisisms.

Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:48 pm

Probably, but when studying minds of shooters, such as those in the Columbine high school, there seems to be a general hatred towards society. The hatred isnt just superficial, it defined the people. The way they spoke, they way they worked, the way the behaved, everything was influenced by this deeply rooted mindset. Yes i do agree to the fact that humans cannot be generalized, and that all shooters are obviously not the same, but there seems to be a common root of all these incidents. Majority of the shooters in the United States, never showed any sort of inclination towards being mentally afflicted or troubled in any kind of manner. They were completely normal and worked perfectly fine with other people. But when their bedroom door shut,and the curtains closed, they would turn into some sort of mini demon that was hiding behind the shell of that person. It really would be crucial if science and psychology can come up with a sieving method, where we can sieve out the probables from the possibles and put them under certain rehabilitation or some sort of observance.

Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:58 pm

Who are scarier? The people who do wrong knowing the fact that they're doing something disastrous or the ones who think everything they're doing is just 'right'? The former might have the fear of losing, since the world has put into our minds that the so called 'wrong' always loses. But the latter... I'm unsure of. I don't think people like Adolf Hitler and Stephen Paddock are any different (though their probable intentions are). But the strangest part is, they know that even if they are right, from their own perspective, they ended up killing themselves. Maybe they feared that the world would never understand their intention or they were probably buried under their own weight of guilt and remorse to an extent. All they did is comfortably murder the person who was the cause of all teror. 'Cause to me suicide is where the murderer and victim are the same person. So, they punished themselves just as they punished the world. All the hatred ending with the deaths of a few. But, don't you think all of us are mini demons in our own living hell? What we are behind the curtain or more specifically when no one is watching... the things we wish for, be it death or life, is all the same. It's just that these people chose to convert their thoughts into reality. What is the definition if a "normal" human? How are we supposed to know that there is something wrong with one? When they appear to be so normal, can we really differentiate? And sieve how? On what basis?