XPost: talk.politics.misc, us.military, us.military.navy   
   XPost: aus.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns   
   From: Voter@Vote2016.com   
      
   To stop massacres, we need to think about what we know.  These are just a few   
   thoughts for the moment.   
      
   1. We know massacrists attack crowds, and that schools are crowds.   
   2. We know many massacrists are students (it used to be postal workers - what   
   healed postal workers?), or poor and unemployed (sandy hook & vegas), and all   
   students basically are poor and unemployed.   
      
   Would a psycho hotline like a suicide hotline work, if they were not   
   persecuted or   
   jocked for turning themselves in to get true voluntary help.  As threats and   
   intention could be totally legal.  One intends, ones threatens, one has guns,   
   it's   
   totally legal until someone asks the threatener to stop, and then it's   
   harassment   
   only to directly communicate.  The idea, that being a danger to onesself and   
   others is not a crime until one actually jocks.  For instance, at the moment   
   one   
   probably can't even call the suicide hotline or go the emergency room, after   
   attempting suicide, without fear of being persecuted.   
      
   Threatening is self defense against the lawless, and the oppressive, and is   
   security of freedom of speech.  Threatening is a way to subvert oppressive   
   governance, and undermine the philosophical notion that we are ruled by threat   
   and   
   violence and murder.  Threatening is an easily perfect response to insult on   
   the   
   internet when both parties are anonymous.  Some people have been really hurt by   
   people they persistently corresponded with in internet forums anonymously, who   
   insulted them ruthlessly.  Sad but true.   
      
   Would mere threatening be an outlet for massacrists, rather than actually acts?   
   People need to express themselves and not suppress the sentiments of their   
   anger   
   and outrage.  And who can really know, what someone really means to be saying   
   when   
   they threaten anyway.  At the same time, people need to know such sentiments   
   are   
   liable to be insulting and inflammatory.  But I think someone who's   
   threatening or   
   killing others likely feels oppressed in some way - Free speech is paramount,   
   and   
   these people are threatened with murder to not speak.  It would be that they   
   just   
   couldn't threaten people to their face, with a weapon, or those threatened   
   would   
   still have a right to shoot them in self defense right then and there if they   
   reasonably believe they're in present danger of life or limb or kidnapping or   
   battery, or are being restrained (restraint leads next to tied, and tied next   
   to   
   kidnapping).   
      
   If someone is threatening, at least you can not come to school, arm yourself at   
   school, be aware of the threat, and attempt to make them happy.  Deterring   
   threats   
   only suppresses the problem until it explodes.  If failing to deter threats   
   would   
   increase the number of frivolous threateners, or give a voice to some seriously   
   unhappy people, then to deter threats is at best to admit a sick society.   
      
   Then again, who is going to make them happy?   An intermediary?  The correct   
   response is: Never. Call. Here. Again.  I'm Armed.     
   Menacing after being told to stop, and of course successfully coercing would   
   remain crimes.   
      
   A threat might be interpreted sometimes as an advocation.  But if the threat   
   has   
   no merit, are people not likely to think for themselves rather than follow an   
   advocation?  And if the advocation has merit, then why are we suffering   
   injustices?  In other words, does advocation really cause anybody to commit a   
   crime?  And didn't somebody acting on another's advocations, in the past at   
   most   
   lead to a lawsuit?   
      
   Successful coercion and bullying, are not possible, when the threats are not   
   allowed after someone asks the threatener to stop.   
      
   Intention to destroy would thus also not be a crime until someone committed a   
   crime. Just a thought.  How do you know what anyone's intentions are.  Just   
   because you think you'll do something, doesn't mean you will.  Just because you   
   think you won't, doesn't mean you won't.  If I intend to make $1 billion   
   dollars,   
   can I have $1 billion today?  All people have good and bad intentions, however   
   sound or fleeting, and we hope their good intentions outweigh their bad.    
   Tempting   
   people into committing crimes with sting operations that provide   
   opportunities, is   
   not ethical either.   
      
   If someone wants to criticize they should lead.  Free speech, leadership, and   
   advocation will get us far farther than destruction.   
   People wanting to take violent action should consider four very important   
   things:   
   1. Grievances   
   2. Demands   
   3. Targets   
   4. Objectives   
      
   But if someone wants to kill you, there's nothing you can do, but kill them   
   first,   
   or go into hiding.  So far as I know.   
      
   I guess someone could try to make them happy, and I guess you could try to   
   address   
   their grievances - if they have any.  I guess you could try to set them right   
   to   
   facts if their grievance has no merit.  As to coercing money - the I.R.S. is   
   fairly coercive, - what gives it the right? - but the same as what gives a   
   suffering student who needs more money.  Is withholding property as evil as   
   robbery? Is robbery as rightful as withholding? The I.R.S. proves Raskolnikav   
   (A   
   student!) was not so wrong completely.  What if you don't agree with the   
   government's degree of socialism?   
      
      
   Plus, if someone insults you and is getting the better of you, you just   
   threaten.   
   Problem solved.  Of course if you threaten them to their face, they may have   
   the   
   right to attack you.  But this is the internet.   
      
   Bomb threats are the extreme of what could happen here, with legalized threats.   
   And yet at esteemed Universities across the land, students frequently pull fire   
   alarms during midterms to give themselves another week to study.  Some student   
   finally got caught and popped at Harvard I think, and is that rightful?  The   
   fire   
   truck usually just comes by and turns off the fire alarm.  It's no small thing   
   to   
   be convicted and have your citizenship taken away.   
      
   Guns are also a liability for those who might make threats online.  The number   
   of   
   S.W.A.T. attacks has increased tenfold since the 1980s.  Where there used to be   
   8,000 S.W.A.T. attacks per year, there are now 80,000.  I ask, how many   
   convicted   
   of threatening massacres in the last 20 years across the whole United States,   
   who   
   wouldn't actually have done so, versus how many killed in them - 437 plus how   
   many   
   would have acted if not attacked by the government...  If I intend to make $1   
   billion, can I just have it now?   
      
   With the realization that the actual number of people killed in massacres per   
   year   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)