Teens kill Australian baseball player for fun

Carry is a part of the second amendment. Believe it or not in NC by law to get a conceal carry you have to take an 8 hour gun safety course and go through an extensive back ground check. So the licensed conceal carry people are the safest owners.

I don't know about that. Most spree-shooters don't have a criminal background. I'll take your word that it's a part of the second amendment, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good part. I totally understand if someone wants to keep a gun in their house for protection. But why walk around outside with a gun? It carries a high possibility of escalating a situation into something deadly. I wouldn't feel safer if I was sitting next to someone with a gun. I'd feel considerably less safe.
 
I fail to see what the horrible outcome would be of imitating Australia's laws. Can violence really be any worse?
Explain this to those who fear that it's one step closer to the government taking away more of their rights, that it will make them weaker, less secure, emasculated or in some other way violated.

This isn't and never will be a simple answer.

Cracked writer David Wong quoted someone very much in line with this posted just yesterday:

H.L. Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
 
Last edited:
So run out the door, hide, call the cops, use another weapon (like a bat) or some combination of those things.

I don't see the point of allowing dangerous weapons be sold on the market with minimal regulation on the off chance that they might be used to protect someone.
Both accesses to my house are at the front. My bedrooms at the back. My window is 25 feet off the ground and the response time for cops is over ten minutes. If someone comes into my house and I'm in my bedroom there is no running out of the house or waiting on the cops. I have to deal with it and defend myself. And any safety instructor will call you a fool if you choose a bat over a gun (if a bat is all you can get you arent a fool). You are supposed to get a gun and find a corner and wait. If they come at you shoot before they get within arms reach. A bat requires you to be within arms reach, and if you are a small man or woman that bat is probably going to be turned on you. If they have a gun the bat or anything that isnt a long range weapon is just useless. So no forgive me if I don't reach for my louis or knife.
 
Last edited:
See? I don't say most sociopaths kill. In fact, I say most don't.

Precisely. Finally got you to say it. And if that's the case then there quite obviously needs to be other factors that go into it that separates them from most sociopaths. It's not "you're born a sociopath, you're born evil, you will kill - end of story." There is something that separates the sociopaths who kill from the ones who never have any intention of killing anyone or never think of killing beyond what is normal thinking. Thus, Alex_Spider is RIGHT in saying there are other factors at play here other than "born evil" period. And that is environmental and familial and social triggers. Being a sociopath is not the machine, it's just one cog in the machine.
 
Last edited:
Precisely. Finally got you to say it.

I have no problem disagreeing with people in argument. I disagree with people all the time. Right now, Marvolo about guns. But one thing I can't stand is when people are dishonest. I said that from the very first post. There was no "finally." Please stop making stuff up.


And if that's the case then there quite obviously needs to be other factors that go into it. It's not "you're born a sociopath, you're born evil, you will kill - end of story."

I never said that. Nor did anyone else in this thread.

There is something that separates the sociopaths who kill from the ones who never have any intention of killing anyone or never think of killing beyond what is normal thinking. Thus, Alex_Spider is RIGHT in saying there are other factors at play here other than "born evil" period. And that is environmental and familial and social triggers.

I suggest you read up on sociopaths a bit more. That's all I have to say to you.
 
Okay, then actually Project was the first to say born evil period. And then you said born. Point being the one of the few to actually make sense on the first page is Alex since:

1) Not all sociopaths kill
2) No empathy doesn't equate wanting to kill
3) It is rare for a sociopath to kill
4) Something then quite clearly and definitively separates them from other sociopaths - these are environmental, societal, and familial triggers.

Let's take Eric Harris for example - all right, no empathy - going further he was moved multiple times which would put a strain on any kid and this further made him feel isolated, he was seen as the runt of the family since his brother was the star athlete, he wasn't seen anywhere near popular and was made fun of (not saying Columbine was caused due to bullies, but he was made fun of and that's a fact), he got into hard core music (music saying how god-like it is to kill those who have cut you down) and became literally obsessed with Doom (he was rarely seen away from it) and Natural Born Killers (showing how fun it is to be a killer). Among other factors. All of these factors contributed to his breakdown. Not one single one. All working in tandem. Now you take all of these away? You're not going to have him just going crazy - if that was the case? You would have a five year old running around cutting people, not pretending to be a soldier protecting people from aliens and enemy soldiers with friends. There was a noticeable build-up not Michael Myers. His mind almost was literally wired to think to lead a good life one needs to be superior (his brother, the jocks getting away with everything, media) and a way to be elevated is by killing (Doom, NBK, music).
 
Last edited:
Okay, then actually Project was the first to say born evil period. And then you said born. Point being the one of the few to actually make sense on the first page is Alex since:

1) Not all sociopaths kill
2) No empathy doesn't equate wanting to kill
3) It is rare for a sociopath to kill
4) Something then quite clearly and definitively separates them from other sociopaths - these are environmental, societal, and familial triggers.

These are all things I said directly or indirectly. In fact I had an exchange with Teelie about how some videogames can be a catalyst for people who already have murderous inclinations. Although sometimes, sociopaths do just kill without any clear trigger. What was the trigger for the Menendez brothers? Or Ted Bundy? You should watch 'We need to talk about Kevin' about a kid who was raised in a loving, privileged household and ended up going on a shooting-spree anyway.

Let's take Eric Harris for example - all right, no empathy - going further he was moved multiple times which would put a strain on any kid and this further made him feel isolated, he was seen as the runt of the family since his brother was the star athlete, he wasn't seen anywhere near popular and was made fun of (not saying Columbine was caused due to bullies, but he was made fun of and that's a fact), he got into hard core music and became literally obsessed with Doom and Natural Born Killers (showing how fun it is to be a killer).

This doesn't sound like anything different from a million other teenagers. In fact, his problems kind of seem minor. No huge deaths in his family. No drug addiction. Not even an expulsion.

Bullying, moving and watching violent movies? Even being overshadowed by a sibling or friend? Who hasn't been through that?

Among other factors. All of these factors contributed to his breakdown. Not one single one. All working in tandem. Now you take all of these away? You're not going to have him just going crazy - if that was the case? You would have a five year old running around cutting people, not pretending to be a soldier protecting people from aliens and enemy soldiers with friends.

A five year old doesn't have the reasoning capacity, motor control or drive to go around killing people, even if said five year old lacked empathy. :whatever:
 
Okay, then actually Project was the first to say born evil period. And then you said born. Point being the one of the few to actually make sense on the first page is Alex since:

1) Not all sociopaths kill
2) No empathy doesn't equate wanting to kill
3) It is rare for a sociopath to kill
4) Something then quite clearly and definitively separates them from other sociopaths - these are environmental, societal, and familial triggers.

Let's take Eric Harris for example - all right, no empathy - going further he was moved multiple times which would put a strain on any kid and this further made him feel isolated, he was seen as the runt of the family since his brother was the star athlete, he wasn't seen anywhere near popular and was made fun of (not saying Columbine was caused due to bullies, but he was made fun of and that's a fact), he got into hard core music (music saying how god-like it is to kill those who have cut you down) and became literally obsessed with Doom (he was rarely seen away from it) and Natural Born Killers (showing how fun it is to be a killer). Among other factors. All of these factors contributed to his breakdown. Not one single one. All working in tandem. Now you take all of these away? You're not going to have him just going crazy - if that was the case? You would have a five year old running around cutting people, not pretending to be a soldier protecting people from aliens and enemy soldiers with friends. There was a noticeable build-up not Michael Myers. His mind almost was literally wired to think to lead a good life one needs to be superior and one way to be elevated is by killing.

Good points. Here's an interesting link that goes deep into the causes of violence and provides food for thought.

http://www.psychalive.org/2011/11/a-new-approach-to-violence-treatment-an-interview-with-dr-james-gilligan/

The following videos and transcripts are part of an exclusive interview series with Dr. James Gilligan and Dr. Lisa Firestone. Dr. James Gilligan is a renowned violence expert, and has contributed years of research to the treatment of some of California’s most violent prisoners. Additionally, he served as an expert witness in the litigation that was subject of the Supreme Court decision in Plata V. Brown.

The human soul, the human psyche, needs love in order to survive, just as specifically as the body needs oxygen in order to survive. And for people who haven’t been starved for love, that may not be the first thing they would think of. I mean, we kind of take it for granted that we get love from a lot of people. But if you have lived in an environment where you were starved for that, you’re talking about a whole different range of experience. Just like with somebody who’s starved for oxygen, I mean, most of the time we don’t even think about the air we breathe, it’s just the air we breathe. But when somebody’s oxygen supply is cut off, you realize it’s life threatening in a very short time. Well, it’s the same with the prisoners. They were like people whose oxygen supply had been cut off, but it was their love supply. And I realized that without love, the soul cannot survive; it dies. And that’s what these men were telling me, that their souls had died. That’s why they were capable of killing other people.

Dr. James Gilligan on How Prison Worsens Violence

Most prisons do more to stimulate violence and crime than they do to prevent it. Prisons have often been called “schools for crime,” I’d call them graduate schools for crime. People often have to become violent in order to survive in them. Or, even if they’re not attacked by others, they are subjected to conditions of degradation and humiliation and intimidation and threats that I think might drive the most saintliest of people, you know, to become violent in response.


I treated the violent prisoners in the prisons as my teachers and I was their student in my effort to learn what caused them to become violent. And they would teach me. I just had to listen to them. I had to pay attention. If we don’t take that attitude of wanting to learn from them, then we lose a golden opportunity to learn how to solve what I think is arguably the most serious public health problem our society, in fact, our species, faces. I mean, if you think about it, the human propensity to commit just unlimited degrees of violence is the most direct threat to the continued survival of our species.

The main social and economic causes of violence – and I’ll add political causes – are those that divide the population into the superior and the inferior, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor. The more highly unequal a society is, the higher its rates of violence. For example, the most powerful predictor of homicide rates throughout the world – and this has been repeated in dozens of studies – is the size of the gap between the rich and the poor. The greater the degree of economic inequality in a society, the higher the murder rate, the lower the inequality, the lower the murder rate. For example, in the world today, the countries with the lowest rates of economic inequality, or, in other words, the highest rates of equality, are the countries of Western Europe, Japan and the other English speaking democracies – Canada, New Zealand, Australia. They have the lowest rates of inequality and they have murder rates that are, in most years, well in Western Europe and Japan are roughly one-tenth of ours.

Dr. James Gilligan, M.D., is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, and Collegiate Professor in the School of Arts and Science at New York University. He is a former president of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. He is the author of Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, Preventing Violence: Prospects for Tomorrow, Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others. As a faculty member of the Harvard Medical School for many years, he headed the Institute of Law and Psychiatry, and directed mental health services for the Massachusetts prisons and prison mental hospital. He served as an expert witness in the litigation that was the subject of the Supreme Court decision in Plata V. Brown.
 
Last edited:
'What About Kevin' - a movie about a mom who never wanted a kid, when the kid cried she would throw a fit, the mother always viewed her son as a burden and a problem from the moment he was born. I don't know about you, but if my Mom viewed me as a burden and a problem from the moment I was born? I'd think there was something wrong with me and be angry too. Now just throw in being a sociopath and you've got something. TONS of people have called her a terrible mother. Also this isn't just my "read" of the film either - you can just go to any movie board discussing it to see that this is a clear interpretation of it. This isn't saying Kevin is free from blame, but that the mother is clearly also to blame.

And the rest, you'd need to dig further into their back story. And no, it doesn't sound different but yet again - you are thinking of them as normal. They have a mental condition. Their brains aren't wired right. So they wire things all by themselves. His brother is seen as the good son - he is seen as superior, the jocks get away with everything - everyone sees them as superior and others as inferior, they seem to be leading a good life whereas my life really seems to suck. I hate them. I wish I was freaking alone!!!!! God, I can't be alone! I need to freaking kill those ass holes now!!!! You look through everything about Eric and you can see this progression quite clearly. Being mental is part of it, but some people are mental and never kill. What is that difference? It's the sphere of influence in one's life. These don't hit us because our brains are wired normally. But, where is the difference between a person with a condition who snaps and the person with the same condition who doesn't? Sphere of influence.

That seems like just an excuse as to why a five year old wouldn't kill. More messed up kids that age have killed. I think I've even read a five year old kid set a girl on fire. Now, you look back on that kid - and you might see that he witnessed his Dad hitting his Mom when he was younger = men hitting girls when they make you angry is okay, Dad does it.

You could say who thinks like that -- people's whose brains aren't wired normally. Their sphere of influence takes these free-flowing wires and randomly connects them into the wrong ports and wala - you've got a killer on your hands.
 
Last edited:
But media reporting of it has sky-rocketed to unheard of levels so the impression is it is worse than before.
 
I think you both have a point. Yeah, guns are a part of American culture. But Australia afaik only banned semi-automatic and automatic weapons. You don't need those to deer hunt. They can be banned and the second amendment can stay intact.

(although I didn't see any indication of what gun they used)
I've read in a couple spots it was a .22 revolver, not exactly a gun where magazine capacity laws would have helped.
 
Can I blame you for the rape, murder, subjugation and discrimination of the Aborigine people of Australia then? Or how you are now turning away desperate refugees who are living in the worst of the worst conditions and trying to make it to Australia where you promptly throw them in the equivalent of concentration camps on some island in the middle of nowhere? I can go on. Don't get high and mighty that you are somehow better. No one can claim that because everyone has some nasty history in their national heritage and it's not exactly hard to find some truly grotesque atrocities.

It's never deserved to blame you for something you didn't do or have any control over. That's ridiculous. If you blame all Americans for what a few scumbags did, you are generalizing much in the same way racists blame a whole race for the actions of a very few. I've read your posts before and you've never come off as irrational, so I'm kind of stunned you'd willfully give yourself into blind hatred like that.

Thats the same mentality American's have hating all Arabs because of the actions of Al Queda......I hope you're joking man because that ****s sad. :csad:

Agreed with all of you.

America does seem to get the worst of it, which makes me think it's an excuse for them to voice other grievances. If an Aussie killed an American, I don't think anyone would start cursing out jmc and tell him his whole country is to thank for whatever tragedy happened.

Yeah that's a bit unfair in the case of America. Although maybe it has to do with the fact that it has more population than other countries and has a controversial past in politics in general. But still, it is unfair to blame the U.S. more than other countries when incidents like this take place.

I suspect there is more to the story than bored teenagers but this is what is being popularized as the story.

I've been bored many times, sometimes it feels like I'll be bored to (my own) death but I don't think it ever came to mind to go kill someone to alleviate it.

Then again, I'm more well adjusted than these three were and I still don't think boredom is the truth. What's more likely is they were wanting to kill and looking for an excuse to do so. Whatever their reasoning to kill, boredom did not provoke it.

I think you may be right.

If you've ever taken a basic anthropology class, you know that people are a combination of nature and nurture. Such is likely the case here.

No I haven't taken any basic anthropology class. After all I don't agree with the controlled knowledge that is derived from established institutions that clearly teach what they see fit. I still think a human baby is born as an empty vessel with no sign of what character he will develop. We can only predict his physical traits that are embedded in his genes and define his body structure. From there, it is all a matter of what kind of interactions he will make with he environment and other people. The better the interactions he makes, the better human being you will get.

What do you expect when nearly half the music black children listen to is about murder and drugs? And don't tell me it has no impact because guess what...they ain't listening to Britney Spears when they are doing a drive by. They listen to music that encourages those dark attitudes. The lack or real parential guidance doesn't help.

bth_Joker_AndHereWeGo.gif

To me whoever associates this incident with black people in general, is a racist prick in my book. As if white/Caucasians haven't committed similar or worse kinds of violence :whatever:

For the record, violent crime among youth is way down from 20 years ago.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/vca_temp-trends.html Violent crime arrests among youth are down almost 50% from 1995.

Apparently a lot of this has to do with a decrease in demand for crack.

Those are encouraging statistics.
 
I still think a human baby is born as an empty vessel with no sign of what character he will develop.

This is the part that I might have to disagree with you on. We are born with certain traits such as mental disorders. These disorders are what furthers what happens to somebody. Nature - mental disorder. It messes with the wiring in their heads and this is something they have absolutely no control over. One of my friends is bipolar and nobody has made him develop that way, he was just born that way. His manic episodes are out of his control. Nurture - what happens to somebody as they develop, this is what builds in triggers. Thus, uniting the two for a result. A light for the fuse (nurture) and the bomb (nature).
 
This is the part that I might have to disagree with you on. We are born with certain traits such as mental disorders. These disorders are what furthers what happens to somebody. Nature - mental disorder. It messes with the wiring in their heads and this is something they have absolutely no control over. One of my friends is bipolar and nobody has made him develop that way, he was just born that way. His manic episodes are out of his control. Nurture - what happens to somebody as they develop, this is what builds in triggers. Thus, uniting the two for a result. A light for the fuse (nurture) and the bomb (nature).

Well you might be right in some cases, I just meant in a more general way how we define with ease good and bad people when clearly life is not black n' white but instead has many layers and grey areas.
 
I still think a human baby is born as an empty vessel with no sign of what character he will develop. We can only predict his physical traits that are embedded in his genes and define his body structure. From there, it is all a matter of what kind of interactions he will make with he environment and other people. The better the interactions he makes, the better human being you will get.
I know two sisters....raised the same by the same people.

One is a married school teacher with two kids, very active member of the church and community and participates in multiple charity events.

The other has been arrested multiple times for robbery, is a drug user, has had three of her five kids (by five fathers) removed by the state of Kentucky (ran out of the state with the others and will be arrested if she returns) and has screwed over every member of her family to the point that none want anything to do with her again.
 
I know two sisters....raised the same by the same people.

One is a married school teacher with two kids, very active member of the church and community and participates in multiple charity events.

The other has been arrested multiple times for robbery, is a drug user, has had three of her five kids (by five fathers) removed by the state of Kentucky (ran out of the state with the others and will be arrested if she returns) and has screwed over every member of her family to the point that none want anything to do with her again.

Are those sisters real people? Forgive me it's just that I have seen a similar example being brought up as an argument before that's why I ask. But even so, how do we know for sure what kind of interactions this girl had with her parents and other people, since she was born that shaped her psychic and those little things that we don't notice in first sight. I can't accept the one girl was simply born "good" while the other one "bad". Seems too shortsighted and depressing to me.
And you mentioned she is a drug user. Maybe that's where all this abhorrent behavior comes from. She is sick and will commit every criminal act to get her dose hence the screwing over her family.
 
Last edited:
Are those sisters real people? Forgive me it's just that I have seen a similar example being brought up as an argument that's why I ask. But even so, how do we know for sure what kind of interactions she had with her parents and other people, since she was born that shaped her psychic and those little things that we don't notice in first sight.

They are my wife's nieces....when their parents abandoned them, my wife's parents took them in (my wife is only a few years older than them) they all grew up like sisters. My wife and the one niece worked their way through college, became accredited teachers, were never into drugs or alcohol, and have stable nice homes. The other niece I described earlier.
 
So run out the door, hide, call the cops, use another weapon (like a bat) or some combination of those things.

I don't see the point of allowing dangerous weapons be sold on the market with minimal regulation on the off chance that they might be used to protect someone.

I'm sorry but this is just silly. You break into my house, I'm not running.

Also, I'm not going to give up a semiautomatic for a flintlock pistol, until every crook turns in theirs.
 
They are my wife's nieces....when their parents abandoned them, my wife's parents took them in (my wife is only a few years older than them) they all grew up like sisters. My wife and the one niece worked their way through college, became accredited teachers, were never into drugs or alcohol, and have stable nice homes. The other niece I described earlier.

For some reason I thought this might have been the case.

My history background: My biological father was most likely a criminal and abandoned my biological mother before she had me and I was sent away to be adopted.

Now there's two different ways somebody could react to this.

# 1 - I look up to my biological father, and try to emulate him, either because I want to or because I don't believe I deserve any better than to be him.

# 2 - I look down on my biological father to the point where I make a vow to never be anything like him at all.

I chose path # 2, but others just as easily choose path # 1. Here it seems like a nurture case, or at least I think so because # 3 is the fear of what would happen if I was not adopted into a Kent type household. It did kind of sound like the divergence could have come from something like that.
 
I can't accept the one girl was simply born "good" while the other one "bad". Seems too shortsighted and depressing to me.
And you mentioned she is a drug user. Maybe that's where all this abhorrent behavior comes from. She is sick and will commit every criminal act to get her dose hence the screwing over her family.
Uhm, she was raised with my wife and her sister....why weren't they drug abusers too?
 
What it comes down to is how the child copes with his or her environment. That and the kind of support they get in said environment.
 
Uhm, she was raised with my wife and her sister....why weren't they drug abusers too?

What do you know or what do they know about their biological parents? I'd say a large of it stems from that - emulating them or not emulating them. It could also be feeling misplaced in the home with your mother while the other did not, this often leads to similar outcomes. It's actually a common adoptee case and it gets all the more muddled to really study and analyze because its not the natural-study environment there are other factors at play which are harder to determine. It seems very text-book though with adoptees.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"