Mass Shooter Derangement Syndrome in America

1. They are not interested in solving crime problems. They want the country disarmed for a myriad of reasons and none of them are to save lives.

   • A huge and permanent dent could be put into this mess by one thing:

     Fathers.

     Real men who have experienced challenges and learned to rise above it.

     Call me sexist, but when a young male’s role model is not a more mature male, he will succumb to failure, ineptitude and irrelevance. Feelings are fine until a male child reaches the age of say, 13 or so. Then reality needs to enter into the mix.

2. My two boys and I, one 13 and19, sat down to watch Christmas vacation with Chevy Chase last night, we laughed our asses off so hard and we watch it every year, America needs to get a sense of humor again and nothing is happening today that wasn’t happening 10 or 20 years ago

   • Just smelling-SMILING. Blousing-uh browsing!

3. Wonder how many of these mass-shooters would attempt their cowardly acts if they knew they stood a real good chance of being shot immediately after starting their rampage? You know, if We The People were all armed as Constitutionally intended. Seemed to work quite well for our forefathers.

   • The death penalty is not a deterrent, so why would a high certainty of getting shot be one?

     • It’s not a deterrent because of the way it’s done. If it was done as originally intended, to make a public example, it would have deterrence value.

       • “It’s not a deterrent because of the way it’s done. If it was done as originally intended, to make a public example, it would have deterrence value.”

         Seems certainty of detection, certainty of trial, certainty of timely administration of punishment are missing as elements of deterrence.

       • They certainly are, and timely is also certainly correct. If one were to say, be whipped with a cane within mere hours of whatever crime they committed, then sent along their way, I do believe it would have a far higher success rate of deterring future crime then the current typical process. The key to it all would be a class of professionals to administer the physical punishment in proper manner, to maintain order and civility. The breakdown and rejection of corporal punishment and public execution stems from anger and sadism that can occur in the process. If public whippings and hangings are to be successful, it needs to be painful, visible, yet fair and fast.

       • I think punishment as a deterrent is overrated. Even when punishment was swift, fatal, and made a public example of criminals, plenty of people still did criminally punishable things. Humans aren’t very reasonable that way.

         Still, it does seem that knowing that they’re almost certain to fail ignominiously, lose their lives into the bargain, and be instantly forgotten would have to reduce the incentive quite a bit for these murderous losers.

         No deterrent could ever be fully effective, but just about anything would be better than the outright encouragement they get now.

         • “No deterrent could ever be fully effective, but just about anything would be better than the outright encouragement they get now.”

           Not withstanding the problems with the death penalty, deterring future crimes by an individual is a social benefit (presuming the process of conviction is 100% infallible), and an effective tool of deterrence on its own.

       • Indeed on being forgotten. These particular types of criminals, like serial killers are looking for fame. Which, come to think of it, you don’t really hear about serial killers in the news the way you used to. I wonder if “mass shootings” Are the “new” thing among the younger generations of deranged individuals. It would make sense. Society is getting lazier and faster with every year. Killing people one by one over a period of years without getting caught takes a ton of effort and time. Much easier to blast away at a crowd of people. But back to my original opinion, outside of deterrence there’s also retribution and justice as justifications for death or corporal punishment.

       • “…deterring future crimes by an individual is a social benefit…”

         The problem is that the death penalty, so far as anyone can tell, doesn’t seem to do this in any noticeable way. There are a bunch of studies on this. Loads of people have very strong beliefs one way or another but there’s very little data to back them up. That suggests that, at best, it’s a wash.

         Anecdotally we can turn to someone like Albert Pierrepoint who personally brought death to hundreds of people as an executioner. In his retirement years he reflected that the type of person who actually does a crime that gets them the death penalty is exactly the kind of person who is not deterred by it and therefore the death penalty ultimately was a waste. He would seem to be the type to know since he was with literally hundreds of these people in their last moments before he hanged them, something basically no one else can claim to have even bare bones knowledge of. Yet he came away, at best, conflicted and with pretty good arguments based on experience that his job wasn’t useful.

         As you point out, there’s the issue of wrongful conviction, which we know happens. It’s almost a statistical surety that some of the people put to death in this country didn’t actually do the crime since we know for an ironclad fact that people on death row have been proved innocent and spared the ultimate penalty, sometimes after decades on Death Row. So the system is undeniably flawed and it’s very, very likely that the reason we don’t know of numerous wrongful executions is that continuing to investigate the case after the execution isn’t something that generally happens.

         Then there’s the efficiency issue. Seems to me that a lifetime of hard labor would produce some benefit to society, small no doubt but measurable, where the death penalty incurs nothing but cost even if it’s carried out “well”.

         Then there’s the ethical issue that I’ve brought up before. Once the person is rendered to no longer be a threat it’s effectively murder to kill them, no different than an “anchor shot” on a disarmed and wounded or surrendered home invader or summary execution of POWs. If there’s no threat, there’s no justification for lethal force which means the death penalty is usually not justified (except in rare cases of organized crime and treason where the person can continue to harm others in the greater society while that person is incarcerated) and rather a tool of vengeance rather than justice.

         I find it odd that many Conservatives support the death penalty. They don’t believe the Post Office can get the mail right, they talk of deep state corruption, of political hatchet jobs, of waste, fraud and abuse. Government should be small they argue, and confined to very narrow jobs because they can’t be trusted to do anything right. Yet somehow when it comes to dispensing legal death, well of course that same government can be trusted with that… because, ya know, it’s so competent. A very odd juxtaposition IMHO.

         • “The problem is that the death penalty, so far as anyone can tell, doesn’t seem to do this in any noticeable way. ”

           Have another look. The line is about forever deterring the dead criminal from ever again committing another crime. Even deterrence one-at-a-time is useful.

           (also….note the caveat that the death penalty must be 100% certain in determining the individual guilty).

       • Strych9 says:
         ““…deterring future crimes by an individual (emphasis added) is a social benefit…”

         The problem is that the death penalty, so far as anyone can tell, doesn’t seem to do this in any noticeable way.”

         I usually agree with most of what you write, but in this I can’t agree, because that individual will never commit another crime after he’s dead.
         Now, if you mean it doesn’t seem to benefit society in any noticeable way, I still disagree, simply because that individual will never harm society by committing a crime again. It may not deter anyone else, and in that I can agree.
         But that individual will never commit another crime. And that is indeed a benefit to society.

       • Strych, however I would also argue, outside of deterrence, there’s some moral arguments in favor of the death penalty even if deterrence is a wash. I personally believe in retribution and a sense of justice. Even if “justice” isn’t a “real” concept. The sense of it should be. It needs to be, and telling society the philosophy of why justice isn’t “real”, isn’t going to cut it. For truly twisted individuals Ted Bundy, Bin Laden, or Nicholas Cruz, society needs to see them put down like the animals they are, and the families of the victims need to feel a sense of retribution. Some people argue that’s “barbaric” or “primitive” but I disagree. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to exact revenge on someone who’s killed a member of your family. In fact I would argue that’s healthy. Retribution helps allow victims families and society to heal.

       • Sam:

         Sorry I kinda rolled a bunch of comments together there because I thought your line, as a response covered a bunch of them. I should have noted that explicitly.

         One cannot say that a dead criminal is deterred. They’re prevented from doing something by death. Deterrence, by definition means that they don’t do something because they fear consequences. That’s impossible for the dead as they fear nothing in terms of this corporeal existence. Now, recidivism, well yeah, that’s 0.00% by definition too because dead people don’t do anything.

         Perhaps this is a quibble on a turn of phrase but the argument of “deterrence” is common, as is the idea that quick and public executions would enhance the effect. Both would seem to be unsupported by any overall statistical evidence. If that’s an error in my understanding then I apologize.

         Also, I did note your caveat. For the purposes of the reply I ignored it because it doesn’t have any particular bearing on the overall ethical issues or the concept of society’s dregs being deterred from action they’d otherwise take. The assumption also creates a bunch of unanswerable questions unless we lay out an entire framework of assumptions for the discussion to take place in and I don’t feel that’s really necessary here. (Just one example, an infallible system made by people must be made by infallible people. Great, it makes no mistakes but this suggests that infallible criminals would then exist and securing a conviction against an infallible murderer would be impossible and negate the entire system existing in the first place.)

         Big Bill:

         I understand that argument and you’re certainly right that there is some level of benefit to ensuring that a truly dangerous individual is removed from society permanently, call it “downside risk mitigation” or a “stop loss” for society I guess. I just think there are better, cheaper ways to do this from which we can derive way more benefit (labor for instance) and which can be reversed if it turns out that the justice system made a mistake, which we know it does from time to time. Generally, where possible, I like to avoid ethical entanglements and the death penalty comes with a bunch of them.

         Merle:

         I am not going to argue that justice isn’t “real”. However I find that for the death penalty to be moral or ethical it must be, at minimum, perfect and no system made by people is.

         If I’m to accept your argument here that “Retribution helps allow victims families and society to heal.” (I don’t argue that you have a point here, btw, I acknowledge that you most certainly DO have a valid point.) then I am forced to ask the next question. That question is: If retribution is what allows victims and society to heal then what happens with it is society itself that inflicts damage on people in a way that requires retribution to heal? (Execution of the innocent.) It seems to me that we’ve just created a ouroboros.

         If an execution is in error then how does the family of the innocent person, and society, get their retribution and move on to healing? Kill the judge? The jury? The Warden? The lawyers? The executioners? Everyone involved in the system? The politicians that passed the law? Are we then to the point that we require catharsis by mass suicide? This opens up a can of worms that seems to me to be impossible to close.

         • “One cannot say that a dead criminal is deterred. They’re prevented from doing something by death.”

           – Just a play on words. However…..being “deterred” IS being “prevented”. The real difference is that a live person can choose to not be deterred/prevented.

           “Perhaps this is a quibble on a turn of phrase but the argument of “deterrence” is common, as is the idea that quick and public executions would enhance the effect.”

           – One little discussed element of “deterrence” is the entity to be deterred must believe that crossing the line will result in unacceptable response. Doubting the resolve of the entity attempting to deter the action put deterrence at risk. Which leads to something else…deterring crime.

           – Just as in military terms, criminal punishment must be “believable”. That is, the power of retaliation (punishment) must be believable, in all respects: force of retaliation, credibility of retaliation, certainty of retaliation. Or, in criminal justice terms,….severity of punishment, credibility to detect and intercept the criminal, certitude of the swiftness and certainty of punishment. Public hangings and such may indeed offer an element of deterrence, but if rare, symbolic, and ineffectual, deterrence cannot grow out of public punishment.

           “Also, I did note your caveat.”
           – The caveat was there to cover the complaints of many who would complain that capital punishment is fraught with error. Of course, a flawed people cannot produce an error free legal system of capital punishment, but there must be a provision for it. I grew up when the mantra was “better a thousand guilty go free, than an innocent be put to death.” One problem with “perfect” convictions is the punishment may be so rare as to succumb to a challenge of “cruel and unusual”.

       • @strych9,

         Do you even have a job? How is it that you seem to always have oodles of time to write out lengthy responses all over the place? Or is your source of employment paying you to do this?

         • “@strych9,
           Do you even have a job? How is it that you seem to always have oodles of time to write out lengthy responses all over the place? Or is your source of employment paying you to do this?”

           Hey….Guesty McGuesterson

           You forgot me. I too have oodles of time for blogs. I feel dissed, devastated, hurt, fat-shamed.

           (Where’s my EEOC Officer? Where is my complaint form?…..oh…spilled Johnny Blue all over the paper. Well, there’s always tomorrow.)

       • @Sam,

         Yeah, but at least yours aren’t so long I get bored halfway thru. Even when I disagree with something you write, I at least stay interested enough to stick with it to the end. strych9 just keeps blabbing and blabbing.

         • “Yeah, but at least yours aren’t so long I get bored halfway thru.”

           Appreciate your kind words. There are probably one or two who would question your judgement.

     • I doubt they’d be concerned about getting shot (they usually off themselves anyway once they’re either done or face armed resistance) but as a side effect of being ventilated they wouldn’t be able to carry out their attack. These pathetic losers desperately want some validation of their existence and the media gives that to them; the higher the body count the more their name is immortalized. If they recognize they stand a high probability of not being able to achieve their goals, most wont attempt it. There’s a reason they attack schools rather than shooting ranges, and it’s not self preservation

       • You got this right, validation of their loser’s existence!

     • I think if a shooter was taken out before anyone else was injured that would be a deterrent. Of course the news wouldn’t cover it. Plenty of shooters are stopped and the media ignores it. They want carnage, candlelight vigils, death tolls, victim statements, and Hogg boy on TV.

     • If that has to be explained, you wouldn’t understand it anyway.

     • Interesting how that these mass shootings did not occur when more of We The People were armed as Constitutionally intended, ISN’T IT?

       In FACT, name just one mass shooting that took place before unconstitutional gun control. I’ll be sitting here patiently waiting, and waiting, and waiting and . . . .

     • Because they’ll see that they are likely to die without having achieved the notoriety they crave. Attempted mass shooter dropped like a sack of potatoes by an armed citizen after popping off a mere handful of shots in public? NEWS STORY BURIED.

4. How do you turn the USA into a communist/socialist country and NOT make the weakest among us mentally unstable?

   • The USSR in their attempt to create “The New Soviet Man” ended up creating the polar opposite “Homo Sovieticus”.

5. Been saying the same thing for years. Especially giving those idiots their fifteen minutes of fame. Not as eloquently as the author though. I only speak Dixie Southern. Y’all.

6. “Mass shooting derangement (MSD) syndrome is a psychopathic-sociopathic character disorder …The perpetrators who survive need to know that they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, face capital punishment, or be locked away in a mental facility for life.”

   Whereupon those people demonstrating the syndrome should be forthwith placed on a national registry of body parts immediately available for transplant. (Yes, those parts would be harvested with the upmost care, using the latest medical techniques).

   • Not too sure I would want any of their defective DNA in my body, even as a necessary transplant. I pass, I’ll wait for the next donor.

     • “Not too sure I would want any of their defective DNA in my body, even as a necessary transplant. I pass, I’ll wait for the next donor.”

       Who just might be a dead inmate, anyway.

       Can understand your reluctance. However, an abundant supply of parts just might lower the pricing, making spares available to people who otherwise could not afford a life-extending transplant.

       • I know you guys are kidding, but in another article in a scientific journal, Dr Faria seems to suggest that some of these characters may need psychosurgery.

         http://surgicalneurologyint.com/surgicalint-articles/violence-mental-illness-and-the-brain-a-brief-history-of-psychosurgery-part-3-from-deep-brain-stimulation-to-amygdalotomy-for-violent-behavior-seizures-and-pathological-aggres/

         • Helen E.

           You triggered another name, Elaine D, that appeared here for a while back in 2018 (or maybe sometimes in 2019). Keying off your screen name, I realized I hadn’t thought about Elaine D in seemed like a year or more. Anyway….thanks for the interesting link.

           I grew up watching “horror” movies from the ’30s/’40s. So often, the mad scientist was trying to manipulate the brain of criminals, and create a super human. And, of course, “One Flew Over The Cukoo’s Nest. Of course, mind-numbed inmates may be easier to enlist for hosting the body parts to be used as transplants when the need arises.

       • I don’t know if he discusses this in the book, what to do with these losers from a medical standpoint… psychosurgery, anyone?

   • What is it with you evil cowardly demonRat freaks ripping baby’s and others apart to use their body parts?

     We need to film a few of you getting the same procedure used in abortions and see how enthusiastic you are to slaughter innocents in the worm thereafter.

     • “What is it with you evil cowardly demonRat freaks ripping baby’s and others apart to use their body parts?”

       How do you go from using convicted killers as spare parts storage, to abortion? Making effective use of otherwise defective persons is not even on the same planet with murdering the unborn.

       • Because that is what you and your kind do – profit off of death.

7. There is a full blown coup going on against the President and the Constitution.

   Many of these witnesses seem like cia operatives. I feel like I am watching mafia bagmen lieing to keep from being killed.

   Why should I not believe that the increasing rash of mass shootings is related to The CIA, MK ULTRA? Why shouldn’t I speculate that these occurances are just additional attacks on the constitution by the CIA, FBI, State Dept, media and deep state corruptocrats?

   More and more “just following orders types” patroling our communities.

   Proove this is not MK ULTRA or some other attempt by the internationalist one worlders to break us down and soften us up. These shootings, like fast and furious, just designed to get Americans to “trade some safety for security” and push U.S. Citizens to seek the security of international arms control and keep up the continued corruption pipeline

   Suck it up serf.

   Ciamelli is the lieing planted whistleblower traitor

   Epstien WAS MURDERED

   • Speculate as much as you want. Nothing wrong with that. As for proof, however, the burden falls on you if you’re going to start claiming that all of this is either faked or false-flagged.

     Personally, and as the author points out, I think the Marx-flavored postmodern sickness that’s rotting our culture from the inside — plus the fame bestowed on every one of these murderous homunculi — is enough to explain the whole thing.

     It’s all out in the open. The Left and the big-media establishment (which are the same thing) profit politically and monetarily by hyping up all these incidents. And it just so happens that the fame machine they’ve created keeps inspiring the ghouls. Rinse, wash, repeat.

     Destroy the news media corruptocracy, and we’re halfway to solving this problem.

     • It can actually all be traced back to democratic party treason. They never have accepted our Constitutional Republican form of government. And have been systematically and concertedly working to destroy it for well over 150 years. ALL unconstitutional gun control laws can be traced back to the democratic party. With the one exception being the 1967 kalipornia Hughes Amendment. And all American gun control had it’s beginnings in preventing slaves from being armed. Now the democratic party, since they lost their slaves after the Civil War. Wants to make us all slaves; regardless of race, creed or color.

       • The only thing I’d alter is that it’s not the Democratic party as such that’s the problem, but progressivism. The progressive movement has always been enamored with totalitarianism, technocracy, and government control.

         They’ve been trying to get this country to “progress” beyond the Constitution and individual rights for well over a hundred years now, and have completely taken over the Democratic party, which is why it is now a full-fledged enemy of our entire republic.

         • Aye, indeed. Don’t know if you have ever seen it or not, but there is a pamphlet that came out around 1914 called; “Progressive” Jingoism
           https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.2400320a/?st=text

           But it actually has been going on even before that. See: The Haymarket Riot in 1886 which involved a radical faction of socialists, communists and anarchists.
           https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/haymarket-riot

           And as you have noted, they have completely taken over the democratic party. (Which was one of the goals of the communists mentioned in Current Communist Goals: https://www.newsmax.com/pre-2008/communist-goals/2003/05/08/id/675822/)

8. A couple mass shootings would just give a lucky few the ability to offer Jesus birthday wishes in person.

   He’s the Son of God. A card just seems inappropriate.

   Also, for the survivors, you can haggle on sale prices since the merchandise has gore on it. That’s at least 5% off. Or some free cleaning products.

   • That was uncalled for. Don’t be immature while many are hurting tonight due the past week’s events and the loved ones who have been lost. If you want to be an ass, go to Zerohedge.

     • Why would I take this seriously when no one else here does?

       • Who else here isn’t taking this seriously? I don’t really see any other incredibly rude comments towards victims like that other then yours. This blog certainly has its share of trolls and flaming, like every blog does, and which I’m personally guilty of too. But your comment making fun of the victims goes well beyond that. You should hang your head in shame.

       • A joke about something uncomfortable? Get over it. Also, shame? I don’t dig it man. I said it, I own it and if it’s not an error in interpretation of someone else’s words then I’m damn sure not going to apologize or feel much of anything about it.

         Don’t act like most of the people here take this seriously. I’ve been here long enough to know it’s not true.

         So pardon me, but I’m not going to be full-bore serious all the time when a huge percentage of the people here are engaged in, at best, 2A virtue signaling circlejerks while pretending to be “serious”.

       • The shame thing I said as a joke. I’m fine with jokes, I just thought going so far as making fun of victims was ugly. Maybe I don’t read TTAG enough, but I usually don’t see that kind of stuff, at least not commonly. Liberals, conservatives, Christians, jews, muslims, blacks, whites all get it pretty hard here, if that’s what you’re referring to, but the victims of murder rarely do. Of course there’s the blame the victim crowd, too. But I also don’t see it as common.

       • It’s all right, Merle. strych9’s just another paid troll/hack.

9. “If you like your guns … you can keep your guns” 🙂

10. “We have a mainstream liberal press that sensationalizes crime and grants celebrity status to mass killers, while it has moved so far to the left that it has become a propaganda organ of the Democrat Party. It glorifies sex, vulgarity, and violence, and then clamors for gun control and not crime control.“

    This a fantastic assessment of what’s going on here. I even would go so far as to say the media is the *primary* cause for mass shootings. The same with serial killings. The media wants it this way. They like it even.

    • The old saying in the media: “Blood Splatter sells”.

11. To all the people that think the death penalty don’t stop losers from doing the dirty, you’re wrong, ya , they might know their going to die , or want to die, but that’s the whole point. Die, at the hand of law enforcement or suicide, at least your dead, no more victims from you. Stop wasting Taxpayer money on losers, Lawyers won’t like it but who cares, misery mongers they are ,get rich on the backs of the victims & their families. Bleeding hearts are enablers & part of the problem.

    • The problem with the death penalty is simply how it’s currently administered. Putting someone down, in some hidden room, 30 years later, does nothing to deter anyone. Speed up the process, make it public, and now we’re talking. And it’s 100% constitutional. From the founding, for the first 100 or so years of the nations existence, a quick and public execution was commonplace.

      • One of the flaws of America is that we have become too pussified.

        How about adopting the mantra stated in the series Cobra Kai– Strike First, Strike Hard, No Mercy

12. How about a conspiracy theory? Soros or some similar person finds terminally ill people and promises their families tons of money for that person to play lunatic. To create a climate for gun control? Throw it out for Ss and Gs.

13. Awesome article, thank you. As I have previously posted, because the White House has publicly expressed an unwillingness to discuss further “gun control” in light of the “impeachment” issue, we are to expect an onslaught of further “mass” (in quotes because the definition keeps getting less restrictive) shootings. (oh, no “there is not political advantage and there is no conspiracy to these terrifying acts,” but history has shown that the opposite has often been true)
    Even if I wear wearing my tin foil hat it is not hard to see that, for one example as the author points out, the media glorification encourages more to act out in a competitive way to best the last. But, if you look at cases such as the Broward case, where numerous times those in a position to have intervened, well before the shooting and even as it was happening, you can see that a “systematic failure” had occurred and that this failure was politically motivated. So, instead of fixing the problem, the Florida Legislature gave us some of the first unconstitutional Red Flag Laws of the nation, which would not have prevented this tragedy anyway. We already had laws in place, but they were ignored for political reasons.

14. The problem is the culture. graphic Violent videos games. Graphic violent and sexual films. And immoral literature. LTC Dave Grossman wrote about it in his book “On Killing”.
    Now comes the 1st amendment crowd. But I never hear the 1st amendment crowd defend the writings of Adolf Hitler. They defend the writings of Mark Twain. “Huckleberry Finn” for example.

    But try and use “Mein Kampf” as a classroom text book anywhere in America. Or use it as a reference book in the classroom. You as a teacher will be fired. Outsiders will come for your job.

    So in some examples book burning or book removal is supported by the three L’s.

    Children must be taught about their 2A civil rights and responsibilities, in the public school system. That is the only way to reduce the fear about guns. We did it just 60 years ago. And there were no mass shootings in schools back then.

    Will school mass shootings become numerous and normal??? Its “normal” for blacks to kill each other.

    Black murder is normal | Michael Smith | TEDxJacksonville video 20 minutes long
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DxHL2i3cZo

    • “But I never hear the 1st amendment crowd defend the writings of Adolf Hitler.”

      I for one absolutely do defend the writings of Hitler, and yes, covering them in schools. IME topics like this are not half as uncomfortable for the pupil as they tend to be for the teacher and they’re uncomfortable for the teacher because in reality the teacher doesn’t know a damn thing about the topic.

      It’s an interesting video and I’m not going to get real deep on it, but I note that a big part of the second half of that talk rests almost entirely on an assumption and it’s an assumption I question the validity of. That assumption is that “black music” (rap) celebrates murder and criminality.

      I would challenge that notion generally speaking. To speak (or sing) about something is not to support it. Performance art, going back to Old Comedy in Greece, has always had a social critique aspect to it. It invites you to think about what’s being presented, not just accept it. In that way it’s designed to broach uncomfortable topics in ways that one might call an “ice breaker”.

      Overall I think these assumptions are highly problematic. We see a microcosm of the whole problem today with 3rd wave feminism. If one is to discuss “rape culture” on college campuses it can ONLY be from one perspective, that is: “Yes, rape culture is real. It’s an enormous problem and we have to tackle it with ruthless enforcement of a set of policies that shall not be questioned!”. In short there will be no discussion of the actual issues.

      That’s called demagoguery, and it’s way, way too common.

      • to Strych9
        “They defend the writings of Mark Twain. “Huckleberry Finn” for example.”

        “But try and use “Mein Kampf” as a classroom textbook anywhere in America. Or use it as a reference book in the classroom. You as a teacher will be fired. Outsiders will come for your job”

        The 1st amendment crowd have always been hypocrite pigs. In Huckleberry Finn you have derogatory statements about blacks. In Mein Kampf you have derogatory statements about jews AND BLACKS.

        The three L’s support 1st amendment (pornorgaphy). They have never supported 1st amendment (political speech). Just look at the near zero response to what happened to the gun store in Tracy California and its picture window gun display.
        You would think the Libertarian candidates would be making speeches about how a private gun business was being harassed by big government? If this was a store with gay imagery in the windows being harassed by the government. You would never hear the end of the complaints from the L’s about the 1st amendment violations.

        It’s not “black Music’ that’s the problem. It’s “gangsta rap” music. And as far as country music goes. There is no comparison. That is not an issue. I like country music. I like rap music. But most gangsta rap is harmful. Buy it has 1st amendment protection. And it should.

        But is all depends on whose ox is gored. Doesn’t it???

        “Sacramento bar booked anti-LGBTQ rappers during Pride weekend. Now a backlash is coming”
        https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article230899019.html

        It’s always been about morality. And that makes the three L’s very uncomfortable. And very selective in their outrage. And very selective as to what gets 1st Amendment protection from them.

        btw
        Morality has almost nothing to do with a sex act. Teaching Mein Kampf in a classroom is not immoral. You can make a good living doing it. You can also make a good living $$$ singing (or in rap) about murdering people, rape of women, robbing people, and celebrate it in the lyrics.

        An Armed society is a much more polite society.
        And if everyone had guns I don’t think this type of crap would be out in the open so much. It would be behind closed nightclub doors where it belongs.

        • “The 1st amendment crowd have always been hypocrite pigs.”

          I’d be careful about painting with a brush this broad, but generally I agree. More broadly I would say that people love Civil Rights protections in general so long as those protections apply to people and actions that they like. When it turns to someone/something those same people don’t approve of, well that’s a different story.

          I would also ask for the definition of “gangsta rap”. When I hear this term I tend to think of Tupac, Biggie, Dr. Dre and I don’t think of them celebrating criminality and murder. If anything they seem to denounce that lifestyle while acknowledging that they’re trapped in it. But, perhaps that’s just my bias and there are artists I’m not thinking of?

        • to strych9
          The three L’s are part of the cultural problems we have in society. They support singlehood as a “lifestyle choice”. And the Welfare Industrial Complex that goes with it. White people may be afraid of gangsta rap. But they aren’t the ones killing blacks are they? In Baltimore, Detroit, Chiraq, etc, etc, etc.

          But the three L’s do support teaching karl marx. No support for teaching Mein Kampf in schools.
          And no support for the traditional family structure either.

          “Tupac Wishes He Could Have Been A Better Son To His Mother” 4 minutes long
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyDlOlmku68

        • to strych9
          edit
          The three L’s support single motherhood as a “lifestyle choice”.
          Now
          Because You Asked. Here is a example of what I’m talking about. These “ladies” made good money doing this. It’s certainly legal. And it has a beat!

          “Beasty Is Back” 6 minutes long
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYZQBDXTe1I

          Katie Got Bandz Ft. King Louie – Pop Out 4 minutes long
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpHcrhBfgo

    • “But try and use “Mein Kampf” as a classroom text book anywhere in America. Or use it as a reference book in the classroom.”

      lol, the German language class in school had to translate part of Mein Kampf into English.

      On another note, WHY would Mein Kampf be used as a textbook?

      • All kinds of literature books are used as textbooks. Why not use the actual writings of someone as a textbook? I can guarantee you Karl Marx books are used as textbooks and references books in this country. Plus all of his writings.

        I have my fathers copy of his college textbook from Princeton. “The Selected writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels”

        Their writings lead to the murder of 100 million people. All over the world. And their writings are still taught everywhere. The difference is those who worship Marx and Engels didn’t photograph all their murder and mayhem. Unlike the followers of Hitler who took pictures of everything. And carefully documented everything.

        The documented crimes of East Germany and the USSR are only now coming into the public’s attention. They did keep records. But they have been hidden for the last 75 years.

15. Mass shootings are just another form of popular entertainment now. Don’t ya just love when someone says “OMG there’s been another mass shooting” and you whip out your phone so you can check out the latest body count and all the gory details? 🍿 Rooting through Google images looking for the really bad ones not shown in the mainstream news. 😜 See, everyone does. Everyone wants to know the minute someone might outdo the Las Vegas shooter … someone who really ups the fucking ante. 🥳 The piddling 2, 3, 4 fatality counts are just boring now. Within a few years we’ll all be walking around in bullet proof Lexan body boxes. Life will then become. Boring again.

    • Wrong, not everyone.

    • Stop smoking that demtard shit it’s rotten your brain. And stay off of giggle.

16. I will never be involved in a mass shooting. I quit the Catholic church. Who coined the phrase “mass shooting” anyway,

17. Oh! But look what *left-wing media shills * had to say about it…..
    (Re: White Patriarchy is the problem… According to the folks at the Politburo.)

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a35mya/nearly-all-mass-shooters-since-1966-have-had-four-things-in-common

18. I hate to say this but Johnny Cash sang gangsta country with a multitude of songs Kingston trio sang gangsta folk songs, Tom T Hall, Conway Twitty, the list goes on and on.
    The death penalty definitely deters/prevents repeat offenses by the sentenced individual. But it doesn’t have that great amount of success with future offenders. I offer this of proof. A man named Steven Judy was executed in Indiana was national news for weeks, he had killed a young woman. The bleeding hearts kept his up coming electrocution on TV and newspapers for weeks especially in Indiana no one living in the state could not have been aware of date he was to die. I believe it was 12:01am not sure of the actual date, not important can be googled. Now at about 11pm the night of the electrocution 2 guys killed an old man and his wife in Southern Indiana by stabbing each of them multiple times. No way the two perps could have not known what was about to happen in Northern Indiana. One case does not make a universal theory but it does put a very bright light on mine.

Comments are closed.