Would you read Dave Cullen's 'Parkland' book?

EthanEmerson wrote:

I won an early copy of Parkland on Goodreads, and it's the strangest book I've ever read.

Took me days to get through the prologue. It was incoherent and bizarre. I'm a professional writer, so I am completely biased, but I am normally able to read books I don't like when I need the information, but this one was just not well-written and the style is so strange, it makes me think he didn't write Columbine by himself. I realized earlier today that much of Columbine came almost verbatim from his news articles published on Salon.com, so now I wonder if he had serious help from the start. But that's another subject.

I am not more than 70 pages into this book and I've already found lots of gems that just sound so strange it makes me stop and put the book down for days before I can pick it up again.

It literally sounds from those quotes like he was drunk when he wrote this.

Norwegian wrote:

Whats good about Parkland is that people have now focused more on survivors instead of the perpetrator.

Why is that good? The victims were normal people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's nothing about them that I can't go literally anywhere on planet Earth and see and hear with my own eyes and ears. Are their deaths tragic, unnecessary, and painful? Yes. Does that mean we should pay more attention to them rather than on the perpetrator, who's the entire reason their lives were cut short? Absolutely not.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Whats good about Parkland is that people have now focused more on survivors instead of the perpetrator.

Why is that good? The victims were normal people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's nothing about them that I can't go literally anywhere on planet Earth and see and hear with my own eyes and ears. Are their deaths tragic, unnecessary, and painful? Yes. Does that mean we should pay more attention to them rather than on the perpetrator, who's the entire reason their lives were cut short? Absolutely not.

Any old asshole can murder people, you know. It doesn't make them special. Any what focus should perps have in the media? I think the perp behind the parkland shooting was rightfully forgotten or swept to the side.

Now being a political activist, that's something that can be good.

QuestionMark wrote:

Why is that good? The victims were normal people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There's nothing about them that I can't go literally anywhere on planet Earth and see and hear with my own eyes and ears. Are their deaths tragic, unnecessary, and painful? Yes. Does that mean we should pay more attention to them rather than on the perpetrator, who's the entire reason their lives were cut short? Absolutely not.

And their families always say the exact same things about them too. I told my husband the other day, if I ever get murdered, he is absolutely forbidden from telling the news that I "lit up a room" or "would give someone the shirt off my back" (neither of which are true anyway hahaha).

nopenever wrote:

Any old asshole can murder people, you know. It doesn't make them special. Any what focus should perps have in the media? I think the perp behind the parkland shooting was rightfully forgotten or swept to the side.

Now being a political activist, that's something that can be good.

Factually speaking, he definitely wasn't forgotten or swept to the side. There's a new story about Nikolas Cruz in the news every few weeks, and the attack happened over two years ago. He's not even interesting/weird as far as rampage killers go, either. But, the news coverage is highlighting the many years of institutional incompetence and gaps in the system that led to his many extremely obvious warning signs being missed. So, if you want to know why it's important for perpetrators to be focused on...well, that's one reason.

Plus, if someone thinks perpetrators shouldn't be focused on by the media/public...isn't that the exact opposite of the mindset that leads one to join a true crime forum about rampage killers?

downwardspiral wrote:

Plus, if someone thinks perpetrators shouldn't be focused on by the media/public...isn't that the exact opposite of the mindset that leads one to join a true crime forum about rampage killers?

Oh I think of this board and focusing on Columbine as vices of mine. It's not good for me but I do it anyways.

Cruz didn't get the same kind of coverage as Eric and Dylan did and that's a good thing.

nopenever wrote:

Any old asshole can murder people, you know. It doesn't make them special.

That's so blatantly false it defies belief. The murder rate in primitive caveman times was estimated to be about 15%, and that's including war. If we assume a 1:1 murder victim to murder perpetrator rate, that's fifteen out of a hundred people who are capable of committing murder. Really though, the ratio would likely be more like 2 or 3 to 1, since we know that many murderers kill more than one people. So being generous here, it's more like 10% of people who are capable of homicide. Of course we also don't know how many people killed simply to defend themselves and/or others, or who killed to avenge what people hundreds of thousands of years ago would see as a crime. This could drop the real murder rate by several more percentage points. I again remind you that this is during the cavemen times, where there was no central government to prevent crime, working plumbing, heat, or even consistent food/shelter, disease was rampant, and the average human being knew only basic survival skills at best and lacked anything more than spears and rocks to defend themselves with.

Meanwhile here and now in the 21st century the rate of homicide, including those caused by war, has plummeted so far it barely reaches 0.1%.

With all this in mind I respectfully disagree with the notion that "any asshole" can kill people. The data suggests homicide is extremely aberrant behavior even in extreme circumstances and that as many as 90-95% of people are uncapable of killing except in self-defense.

nopenever wrote:

Now being a political activist, that's something that can be good.

Usually it's something that's atrocious because all politics regardless of ideology is about conformity. In this case the political activists want to steal the right to defend yourself using a firearm. If you think that's good I have nothing more to say.

I dont think it's entirely true that they want to 'steal your guns away'. I think thats a narrative US gun enthusiasts to a large extent believe.

Yet, look at how countries outside the US are treating this issue. Guns arent banned, but access to them are heavily restricted. Ive yet to see anyone argue that guns should be illegal. If anything I suspect that people want restrictions, as we know that access to firearms are more accessible in the US than in other countries.

Norwegian wrote:

Yet, look at how countries outside the US are treating this issue. Guns arent banned, but access to them are heavily restricted.

Considering how many restrictions those countries have, they might as well be banned.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Yet, look at how countries outside the US are treating this issue. Guns arent banned, but access to them are heavily restricted.

Considering how many restrictions those countries have, they might as well be banned.

I live in Europe. Not an expert on firearms, but I think some restrictions are needed for a society to survive. I just dont understand why guns should be allowed for people that are not capable of possessing firearms. I think some experts have argued that in cases like these, oftentimes they take guns from their parents house to use them on fellow classmates. If we can limit the access that they have to guns, I certainly think we have atleast done something.

Norwegian wrote:

I live in Europe.

I take it Norway specifically based on your username?

My question to you is that if you had reason to fear for your life, would you like a gun for self protection? If yes, then how easily could you acquire one?

Norwegian wrote:

Not an expert on firearms, but I think some restrictions are needed for a society to survive.

Well here in the States we unironicically, seriously have more guns than people, and so far we're still standing. This aside there are more unstable countries out there with high gun ownership rates (mostly of illegal guns), and while many of them are shitholes I wouldn't exactly call them failed states.

Norwegian wrote:

I just dont understand why guns should be allowed for people that are not capable of possessing firearms.

They aren't. People get this idea of America as some sort of Wild West when it comes to guns, that everyone and their mother can go to a store and buy a machinegun. The truth is that most states require you to undergo a background check if you're trying to purchase a weapon (at least from a licensed dealer). You cannot legally own a gun if you have a criminal record or have been institutionalized.

QuestionMark wrote:

Usually it's something that's atrocious because all politics regardless of ideology is about conformity. In this case the political activists want to steal the right to defend yourself using a firearm. If you think that's good I have nothing more to say.

Lol you really can't comprehend why someone would want the murder rate in the US to be lower? You're not as smart as you think you are.

QuestionMark wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

Yet, look at how countries outside the US are treating this issue. Guns arent banned, but access to them are heavily restricted.

Considering how many restrictions those countries have, they might as well be banned.

They also have lower murder rates than the US. Then again you think murder is cool and edgy and should be encouraged.

nopenever wrote:

Lol you really can't comprehend why someone would want the murder rate in the US to be lower? You're not as smart as you think you are.

The question isn't whether it would be a good thing if the murder rate was lower. The question is if the proposed measures a) would actually do anything, and b) are constitutional. I don't know enough about constitutional law to answer the latter of those questions, so, we'll leave that one to the courts.

As for whether it's effective, we have already tried this once before. According to studies, the 1994 assault weapons ban in the US did not have any effect on the murder rate: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (And this is being stated by the NYTimes, of all sources!)

A lot of rampage attacks are carried out without even using guns, also. One of the worst rampage attacks was the 2016 Nice truck attack which killed 86 people. The only way to stop attacks of that nature is to ban vehicles. Who's to say non-gun attacks wouldn't increase in the US if guns were restricted?

One possibility that people fail to think of is whether the increased rate of violence in the US has to do with other socioeconomic factors, rather than just access to guns. There are other countries with more relaxed gun laws, like Switzerland, with low levels of gun violence, so clearly access to guns isn't the only factor here.

Also, people seem to think of "US gun laws" as one defined thing, when they actually vary significantly by state. My state's gun laws are actually stricter than Canada's, for example.

I dont think it should be about banning firearms entirely. But working on the problems from different angles. You made firearms illegal, you have only attacked it from one angle. Yet, you have to get into the how and why and how can society create effective meassures from there. Not just one thing