Those are sentiments I agree with. There's the deterrent issue, but frankly, I think less people will follow in the footsteps of a faceless bogeyman than they would in the footsteps of someone with a face, personality, and history, and that's equally true whether that person is locked up in prison, gunned down in battle with police, or given the death penalty.
"It would send a message." Well, yes it would, but not the right one. All the copycats on the school shootings weren't dissuaded by the fact that they would face a choice of suicide, death in a gun battle, or imprisonment. That's just part of the plan... part of the scene, if you will.
Do I hope he never gets caught? No. I just hope no one else dies or is hurt. Some of the victims families might never feel "closure" if the sniper isn't caught, but then again, they might never feel closure if the sniper is. There's no magic pill for grief.
With that in mind, I think it's sick to want him to strike again just so he can "be made to pay". Dareb's views on just how he wants to make this guy pay scare me just as much as the sniper himself does. I don't think it's sick. Should the guy pay? Damn straight he should. The problem is that he cannot possibly pay enough. I do think that if he makes one more kill but is caught in the process, that basically qualifies as breaking even compared to the sniper just walking away--not just because of primitive "eye for an eye" vengeance, mind you, but also the added security that could be obtained (both real and percieved). | |
Yo i think they caught that SON OF A BITCH! They confiscated two white vans and have two people in custody! and they also found a phone number and so they are calling that! HE MUST DIE!!!!!!!
bRaMa | |
There is no way to get around it, and this may have been prevented yet the entire country is corrupted.
We live in a "Great" country to the world, yet there is more fear than safety, it all boils down to political abuse. In example, our fearless leader, president Bush II constantly speaks out against the acts of terrorism, while at the same time he conducted acts himself against Afghannis. He has the nerve to strike on that though while he has killed over 100 innocents of Afghanistan trying to "Scare Out" one man that was blamed for the kamikaze actions. Should the sniper be caught under a situation or should he live on free? No, this never should have happened. Before these incidents we were focused on basic public safety, but with our country's poor attension span, we focused off of theb basic public safety and focused more on travel safety and the such, We are headed for a loop, soon this will die down and we will keep a look out for any more snipers, bringing us back to possible school and public destruction like that of colombine. All I know is that I cant feel safe here, it is almost impossible, but I thank heavens for living in a small unmapped town that I am currently living in. --Ken-- P.S: If there is a condition for the sniper, I sadly hope it takes Bush out of office. Or we are all doomed within the rest of his poorly led term (He still has around 2 years left) and I fear another "Great Depression" | |
NeoHaxor wrote:
Before these incidents we were focused on basic public safety, but with our country's poor attension span, we focused off of theb basic public safety and focused more on travel safety and the such, We are headed for a loop, soon this will die down and we will keep a look out for any more snipers, bringing us back to possible school and public destruction like that of colombine. Hardly. We do very little about travel safety and the like, compared to the damage it causes us. We do way too much about other kinds of risks that are almost no danger to us. As many people die every year in car accidents (up to 40,000 -- used to be 50,000) as all Americans who died in the entire Vietnam war. If car accidents were a war, we'd be losing very badly. As a rule we vastly underperceive the daily risks and vastly overperceive the rare risks. For example, people are now driving 20 extra miles to do their shopping so they can avoid the sniper. Driving 20 extra miles contains much more risk for them than a sniper -- more people are likely to die because of this change in behavior than will ever die from the sniper. We can (and probably will) spend tens of millions to try and deter another sniper situation, and perhaps it will save a life or two. Or we can make minor changes in traffic safety and save thousands of lives every year. The "bots dots" in California -- those bumps in the road that you hit when you are drifting out of your lane -- have saved tens of thousands of lives by themselves. You could stop every sniper and every Columbine in history and not approach a fraction of that many lives. | |
He probably played Team Fortress Classic alot to sharpen his sniping skills. Anyways I didn't hear much about this issue but did he snipe fro a building roof or on ground somewhere?
| |
Branks wrote:
He probably played Team Fortress Classic alot to sharpen his sniping skills. To pseudoquote Penny Arcade: Yeah, because reloading a gun is just like hitting the CTRL button. Anyways I didn't hear much about this issue but did he snipe fro a building roof or on ground somewhere? It's mostly thought that he does it from a vehicle (possibly a white van). There aren't many eye-witness accounts, though. -AbyssDragon | |
I doubt he learned how to use a rifle on a video game, but it probably helped him to get over any bad feelings he may otherwise have had in shooting random people. But then, we already know everyone disagrees with my on that topic.
| |
Thats right!
There is absolutely no proof that video games desensitize people, only willpower can do that. A person simply cant view the world as a video game or think they are playing one while awake and if they claim that, its just an excuse. | |
Foomer wrote:
I doubt he learned how to use a rifle on a video game, but it probably helped him to get over any bad feelings he may otherwise have had in shooting random people. But then, we already know everyone disagrees with my on that topic. Yeah murder is rampant in Japan, I hear. Must be, since violent culture and video games apparently leads to violence. | |
A 24 year old brazilian named Mateus Meira opened fire in a movie theater (in Brazil), killing three and injuring eight. He claims that he was inspired by Duke Nukem 3d. The shooters in the Colombine event were fans of the game Doom. While millions of other people were fans of those two games, perhaps there is something in the games that brings out a violent nature in them. The people of course must have had severe mental issues to begin with. There is definately a valid argument that video games cause violence.
| |
In Word War Two, millions of people shot at each other. Does that mean they all played computer games?
| |
Garthor wrote:
In Word War Two, millions of people shot at each other. Does that mean they all played computer games? Just because SOME people that have exhibited violent (violent as in killing) behavior played video games, doesn't mean that ALL people that act violent played video games. edit: Besides, the computers back then weren't advanced enough. | |
Good. Now, do you think those burly, muscular guys in prison spent their time playing violent games?
| |
I don't know why you have the idea that all people that act violently do so because of video games. I said that there are some instances that video games were linked to the cause of violent crimes. I never said they were the cause of all crimes.
OneFishDown wrote: perhaps there is something in the games that brings out a violent nature in them. The people of course must have had severe mental issues to begin with. There was something wrong with the person mentally to begin with. Maybe it was the video games that pushed them over the edge, I myself don't know. Perhaps if you opened you mind a little and read what i have typed, you would see that I am saying that some people have committed crimes and video games are one of the reasons for thier actions. | |
I personally can't see how this is a question. As far as I'm concerned if he stops and never kills again, everything's perfect. The only reason I want him caught is so he cannot murder again. It just so happens that you've expressed my exact sentiments here in another thread (ID:137145):
"It's not about punishment. We cannot do anything about past atrocities. The point is to prevent future ones."
With that in mind, I think it's sick to want him to strike again just so he can "be made to pay". Dareb's views on just how he wants to make this guy pay scare me just as much as the sniper himself does.
Perhaps I'm looking at things overly simplistically.. but I just don't see how anyone gains a thing by punishing him. And it's obvious that another murder is a loss to society and no murder is neither loss or gain. So our options are to break even or lose one... how is that hard to choose?
-AbyssDragon