Fanchick go brrrr.
texas shooter attempted/suceeeded in killing those people if he didn't have a gun?
Posts
Total:
47
-->
@n8nrgim
Lets consider how the incident started because the guy was shooting his gun. If he didnt have a gun, the incident would not have occured at all.
So the question is kinda lined up for a no answer because the incident probably would not have occured at all. There would be no reason to tell the guy to stop.
Considering som reports on the oncident, shooting from the front porch is considered normal.
However, if we take away the gun and keep the motive there, yes the guy could have been just as successful in killing without the gun. Why? Because he had, in his own mind, a reason to do it. People usually follow through unless stopped.
Would the incident occur in the same wayas the shooting? I can see it go both ways. He storms over with a shovel, knife, etc. oR he waits until night or some other convenient way.
Personally I think its planned. Maybe was going to do myrder suicide but decided not to. The cops found his clothes and phone but not him? I think they found those things by tracking. Tracking doesnt just disapear because you take your clothes offf. Usually. Unless the scent on clothes is different from whats on bbody.
So the question is kinda lined up for a no answer because the incident probably would not have occured at all. There would be no reason to tell the guy to stop.
Considering som reports on the oncident, shooting from the front porch is considered normal.
However, if we take away the gun and keep the motive there, yes the guy could have been just as successful in killing without the gun. Why? Because he had, in his own mind, a reason to do it. People usually follow through unless stopped.
Would the incident occur in the same wayas the shooting? I can see it go both ways. He storms over with a shovel, knife, etc. oR he waits until night or some other convenient way.
Personally I think its planned. Maybe was going to do myrder suicide but decided not to. The cops found his clothes and phone but not him? I think they found those things by tracking. Tracking doesnt just disapear because you take your clothes offf. Usually. Unless the scent on clothes is different from whats on bbody.
-->
@hey-yo
so you dont think the impulsive nature of how easy it is to push a button, changes whether or not someone might decide to kill others? you seriously think he would have later premeditated and hunted them down one by one if he only had a knife at first?
so there's second degree murder. or murder where the situation such that a person's mental state is factored in to the punishment given they acted impulsively to the circumstances. you seriously think every second degree murder would have turned into a premeditated first degree murder, if the person didn't have a gun and the means to kill when they were in an agitated state, but later decided to hunt and kill anyway?
so every potential second degree murder with no feasible way to murdering, will eventually became a first degree murder when they have the ability to kill easier?
that's one of the stupidest things i ever heard.
it's easy to see this as a situation where the man had a knife, and was playing his music too loud and was asked to stop. he wouldn't have killed them in that situation given all he had was a knife... but apparently we can rest assured he would have hunted them down one by one later when the ability to kill was easier.
i dont know why you guys think an impulsive decision to kill, necesssarily won't change when the person has time to consider the consequences and come to their better senses. apparently every unsuccessful impulsive decision to kill, will later be followed up with a thought out decision to hunt the victims down.
makes perfect sense.
-->
@n8nrgim
What do you think of the Shinzo Abe assassination?
-->
@n8nrgim
No I think he did premeditate the murders he performed with a gun but acted it out when he did not originally want to.
Otherwise yes, it is possible for someone to contemplate murder and then do it when they do not have a button to push and make it so easy - because looking at or holding the murder weapon gives the idea to kill. This idea then echos in our mind unless our concious stops the echo and we decide not to kill.
The murder weapon can be anything, which is why the impulsive murders use what ever is around or easy to access. Like a rock or knife.
-->
@hey-yo
then it looks like you are contradicting yourself. you say it's possible for someone to change their mind about murder. sometimes murders are impulsive. it's possible someone only had a knife when they wanted to kill a bunch of people, and would have killed them had they had a gun... but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance. if they later change their mind, then whether a gun was present made a difference. yet, you say whether a gun is present makes no difference, or that having more guns around makes no difference.
obviously it can make a big difference, and given how impulsive people are, there are probably a lot of murders that wouldn't have happened if the person simply didn't have a gun.
-->
@n8nrgim
then it looks like you are contradicting yourself. you say it's possible for someone to change their mind about murder. sometimes murders are impulsive
So far no contradiction. Murders that are considered impulsive occurs when a person is unable to change their mind.
it's possible someone only had a knife when they wanted to kill a bunch of people, and would have killed them had they had a gun... but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance
Terrorists use knifes in other countries to attack multiple people. Sometimes a crazy is known to do it too. A guy with a machettee walked around the mall attacking many people some years ago. Gainned national news.
My point is that if someone wanted to cause harm, yes they will use what they can to do so. However, premeditated vs "a crime of passion" will be different. Earlier I described why an impulsive murder would still occur without a gun - unrelated to o.p. incident.
A person develops anger, wants to do harm, then sees an object that could be used as a weapon, sees said object as the weapon, then continues to seek to kill. So related to the incident, the man was already holding a weapon when he was triggered. That weapon could have been anything so long as he was holding it or saw it at that moment.
but couldn't kill at that time due to the circumstance.
If we are talking about any other inpulsive murder or desire to murder, the anger and eventually desire to kill subsides with reasons not to kill.
yet, you say whether a gun is present makes no difference, or that having more guns around makes no difference.
Im saying having any weapon around will not change course for an impulsive murder because for that person, the desire and means are all there. Yes maybe for some they will not try to kill if they see a weapon they can not yield, but that is the start of a concious decision instead of impulsive act. Now we get into premeditated because the person is now thinking about how to kill, unless they stop their desire and do not kill.
In the given incident, if the murders were result of impulse - yes the guy would have killed with a knife. But I do not think it was impulsive. Not entirely at least.
Either the whole thing was premeditated and it looks impulsive, or the killings that he premeditated started at an impulsive moment.
Why?
A. The dad went over to tell the guy to stop shooting. Impulse = the dad is the target. But what happened? Dad lived.
B. If the shooting was impulsive, why did the guy not shoot when the weapon was in his hands? Sounds like the guy shoots alot. He would have easily reloaded right then and there
-->
@hey-yo
"Im saying having any weapon around will not change course for an impulsive murder because for that person, the desire and means are all there. Yes maybe for some they will not try to kill if they see a weapon they can not yield, but that is the start of a concious decision instead of impulsive act. Now we get into premeditated because the person is now thinking about how to kill, unless they stop their desire and do not kill. "
this is where your theory falls apart. you acknowledge that if someone has a weopon but it's not good enough to go on a rampage, they won't do it even if they would have with a gun. *a person isn't necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow up on their impulse.* - this is the key that you miss. the other key point that you are messing up, is that just because someone has a weopon doesn't mean they will go on an impulsive rampage if the weopon is inadequate for the job. they can in fact change their mind... which is why all ya'll's acting like the presence of a gun makes no difference is so stupid. if they had a gun, they would of killed, but since they didn't have a gun, they didn't kill and have the possibility to change their mind, which would necessarily happen sometimes.
-->
@n8nrgim
....that just because someone has a weopon doesn't mean they will go on an impulsive rampage if the weopon is inadequate for the job.
For what ever reason we seem to be saying same thing in a different way. Im not saying a person will automatically kill if they have a weapon present and fit criteria for compulsive impulsive murder. What ever that may look like. Im saying having a weapon present increases tw likelihood that someone will kill because it feeds into how.
Im trying to go into the thought process for someone who is impulsive. The first thought or reaction is going to be "kill." Unless we just attack with our hands, the next inherant thought is how. A weapon is how.
if they had a gun, they would of killed, but since they didn't have a gun, they didn't kill and have the possibility to change their mind, which would necessarily happen sometimes.
I agree. This would happen sometimes.
this is where your theory falls apart. you acknowledge that if someone has a weopon but it's not good enough to go on a rampage, they won't do it even if they would have with a gun. *a person isn't necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow up on their impulse.* - this is the key that you miss
Why does thery fall apart?
Can you elaborate on this and how a person isnt necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow their impulse?
I agree with this.
-->
@hey-yo
"Can you elaborate on this and how a person isnt necessarily bound to later use premeditation to follow their impulse?
I agree with this. "
a person can change their mind. they might have a murderous impulse with a decision to kill, but lack the means to do so. if they change their mind before acquiring the means to do so, then the murder won't occur.
you keep weaving in and out of agreeing with me and not, because i think you are contradicting yourself. you can't agree with me and then not agree with me at the same time. here is what you are doing: you are agreeing that a person can change their mind, but then also you are saying the presence of a gun makes no difference if someone dies or not. you are one of those chumps that say people kill people and the gun is just a tool. the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation. botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
-->
@n8nrgim
you are saying the presence of a gun makes no difference if someone dies or not.
Ah. I do agree that a person can change their mind. Even with a weapon.
I am interchanging the word gun with weapon. Having a weapon present makes a difference if someone dies or not - but what we consider to be a weapon can be more than just a gun. Any weapon influences the person who wants to kill just as any person can say no I will not kill despite there being a weapon or a gun. Like an increase or decrease in possibility/probability
Jamie is more likely to kill his bully, Steph, at school if he has brick nearby because nearby reconstruction caused some bricks to fall in school property and allows Jamie to cause more pain then a punch.
Sometimes it doesnt need to make sense or follow any logic. We see something like a shovel and then just use it. That's what it means to be impulsive right?
So of course a Jamie might shoot Steph if there is a gun. Thats a given because there is a gun.
If I am one of those chumps, then there is no contradiction. Just a dislike towards my opinion.
the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation.
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that because people choose weapons to kill. Pretty rare for someone to be charged with premeditated murder because they punched the person to death.
Now you gotta continue to show that all other weapons being present or available while a gun is not will still result in the same conclusion. No killing.
botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
I agree. Just probably differ on reason why
-->
@hey-yo
so do you, or do you not think that the the presence of a gun can determine whether someone ultimatley dies or not? you keep saying it things like it makes no difference, and then you go and agree with everything i say.
"the thing is, i've shown that if a gun isn't present, they won't kill, sometimes, and then could change their mind before using premeditation.
Thats fine. I never disagreed with that because people choose weapons to kill. Pretty rare for someone to be charged with premeditated murder because they punched the person to death.
Now you gotta continue to show that all other weapons being present or available while a gun is not will still result in the same conclusion. No killing.
botttom line, the presence of a gun makes a difference, sometimes, in whether someone ultimately dies.
I agree. Just probably differ on reason why "
how can you say you agree with me and differ in the reason why? you keep changing your position. the whole premise for us debating is that your position is that the presence of a gun makes no difference in whether someone ultimately dies. you can't negate your own position and then pretend we're disagreeing.
-->
@n8nrgim
What's your thoughts on the Shinzo Abe assassination?
-->
@n8nrgim
Lol.
Im saying the presence of a weapon, like a gun, increases the chance of a person killing another. Just like anger and drugs can increase the chance of murder in a situation.
So im not saying its an absolute.
how can you say you agree with me and differ in the reason why?
THe way we explain our conclusion can be different along with our premises.
Sounds like you are saying a gun makes a person more likely to kill because its easy to use "press a button."
Im saying a gun does the same thing but because a gun is a weapon to use.
So our conclusion is same, gun = more killing. But our reasons why are different. Button smashing vs accesability.
you keep changing your position. the whole premise for us debating is that your position is that the presence of a gun makes no difference in whether someone ultimately dies. you can't negate your own position and then pretend we're disagreeing.
I dont think Im changing my position at all. There is something off about what you are saying in terms of what my position is. A gun does make a difference, but that difference is interchangable with other weapons. Take away the weapon, then of coarse no one will use the weapon.
Im not acting like we are disagreeing either. I gave my opinion about the o.p. issue.
Now I am trying to clarify my position.
-->
@hey-yo
so if you agree that the presence of a gun can make a difference on whether someone dies or not... then why are we debating? and are you sure you even disagree with me?
i'm pretty sure you said someone could have a knife and not be as likely to kill than if they had a gun, so i still think you are contradicting yourself.