• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven dead in drive by California shootings

TubbaBlubba said:
I'm sure he viewed gay men as the ultimate betas, men who were so resigned they would rather hump each other's pathetic, rejected behinds than acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... maybe gay men are what they ment when they mentioned "omega males".
 
Dissolution said:
Can anyone explain the thinking behind killing his roommates?
He claimed that it was to get them out of the way, I believe. Out of the way of what? He wasn't intending to kill anyone else in their apartment, was he?
Click to expand...
As I read his diatribe he intended to torture then kill others in his apartment so the roomates were killed first. :mad:

eta: damn I was way late with this. sorry.
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
So you don't believe explosives are an effective killing tool?

I'm sure the united states military would be interested in your ground breaking discovery, i hear they have had a bit of an issue with them.
Click to expand...

Other than violating the 'law of so', I have no idea what you're trying to say here. We're discussing the gun culture in the US and mass shootings. Try to keep up.
 
sadhatter said:
what are you getting at?

He didn't use a pipe bomb because a gun was available, but a pipe bomb would be just as, if not more effective.

Think of it this way, how good are you at churning butter? Probably not very because you don't need to. But if pre churned butter was made illegal tomorrow you would probably become very good very quickly. Same thing with guns. If you can easily find one you will use it, but there are many other options that are as effective. In fact many spree killers also bring explosives with them. They get the job done and well.

So i ask again , in a world with no guns, do you not believe that explosive could do the same job?
Click to expand...

No I don't. If they could do the same job what is the point of guns?
 
sadhatter said:
In fact many spree killers also bring explosives with them. They get the job done and well.
Click to expand...

Except they don't.

How many kids did the Columbine killers murder with explosives? Zero. How many did James Holmes kill with his home-rigged bomb? None. I think Anders Brevik managed to kill eight, but that was misdirection for the dozens of teens he gunned down. If this incel had decided to build a bomb, don't you think he would've been more likely to get caught? Don't you think his roommates would've been more likely to realize he was up to something? He could've maimed himself, or he could've built a dud. The problem with bombs is that it's not something you can easily outsource.
 
colander said:
What does any of that have to do with this guy? He was resentful that nobody wanted to have sex with him. Having to pay for sex wouldn't have made him feel any better about himself.
Click to expand...

Doghouse Reilly said:
Yes. On the PUAhate message board, I remember he posted that it wasn't just the sex, but the validation that was equally, if not more, important.
Click to expand...

In his manifesto he said that women shouldn't be able to decide who they have sex with, but that rather the decision should be made by some male authority figure in their life. If some man had ordered his daughter to marry this guy, and she did, and had sex with him, would have considered that "validation"?
 
Matthew Cline said:
In his manifesto he said that women shouldn't be able to decide who they have sex with, but that rather the decision should be made by some male authority figure in their life. If some man had ordered his daughter to marry this guy, and she did, and had sex with him, would have considered that "validation"?
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I don't really think anything would have actually made this guy feel much better for very long. And also it's important to remember that he's not exactly a paragon of consistency.
 
Last edited:
Redtail said:
Hmmm... maybe gay men are what they ment when they mentioned "omega males".
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Elliot Rodger said:
Gavin was the only young person I really interacted with at the time, besides the occasional meetings with Philip and Addison. He was a good-looking guy, with a chiseled jaw and bright blonde hair.
Click to expand...

Elliot Rodger said:
One of them was named Artem, a quiet Russian student who went to UCSB; and the other, whose name I don’t remember, was a tall blonde surfer-type boy who went to SBCC. I was annoyed at how tall and attractive he was, though I didn’t show it.
Click to expand...

Elliot Rodger said:
At first glance, I didn’t know what to make of him. It was like meeting a whole new person. He had changed tremendously. With his mustache and hairstyle, he looked older than he was, cultivating a refined and sophisticated personality and wearing an elegant blazer coat.
Click to expand...
 
Snarf said:
Hmmm...
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but as a heterosexual male I would have no issue recognizing this type of attractiveness in men, and have certainly had occasions on which I felt impressed or even envious of another man's attractiveness. I don't think Elliot Rodger was homosexual.
 
qayak said:
I did answer your question by showing how absurd it was. For all the claims you make about there being so many ways for people to carry out mass killings why do you suppose so many of them choose guns?

Why would any mass killer bother with a pipe bomb when guns are so easy to get and do so much damage?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be easier to build a swimming pool and push people in?
 
Those were the only pseudo-homoerotic passages I could find in such short time after seeing people mention that he might have been gay. Whether he was or wasn't, or even a little bi, I can't really be sure, but thought I'd share what I found.
And I don't know about you, but as a heterosexual male I wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what "an elegant blazer coat" might look like.
 
Some guy is loved by no one, is depressed, is sad, and has a gun?

s_m.gif


Greetings,

Chris

P.S.: That comes from my own domain, so hotlinking is OK.
 
12AX7 said:
If those six innocent victims had simply been armed, this would have a different outcome. All they had to do was go and take a one-day CCW course, buy a gun, spend some time on gun forums, and they would be alive today. Indeed, at the first sign of trouble, they all could have sprung into action.
Click to expand...

Greetings 12AX7,
I can see your point,
but allow me to suggest a different scenario.
I'm a California gun owner, have a Colt 380.
A small business owner at the time, I bought it right after the '92 Riots.
You'd never know that I was carryin' it on me if I did so.
And I did.

It's smaller than my hand, 6+1 in the chamber,
I'm well practiced with it, the quick draw from my waist, my aim is good,
it's bullet trajectory is spot on, I surf very well, my hand/eye coordination is excellent.
I don't need to show you pix of any paper targets...

Say there were other like minded people doing so too.
Like you.

Say a deranged, pissed-off individual,
ready to rampage, ready to die,
starts shooting.

You pull out your piece and start shooting back.
Someone else see you shooting, he or she does not know that you are not the instigator, the perp, but instead are the 1 trying to help.

Bam!
He or she shoots you dead.

Bam,
others who are carryin' also pull out their guns and shoot the person who shot you, because in the confusion of the scene, they saw you get shot, but are not certain if it was you who actually started it? Shoot 1st, ask questions later, right? Better to have Trial by 12 than Burial by 6, right?

Bam,
the cops show up, and with gunshots still ringing out,
start shooting whomever they see with a gun in their hands,
once again, due to the chaos of the scene.

Question:
Are you sure you need to carry that gun on ya, everyone?
I've carried mine before, but not for many, many years nowadays.
I don't feel a need to, here in L.A.


If it's not 1 on 1,
man, I can see soooo many others getting shot, wounded or killed in a shoot-out at a crowded mall, a busy street, a packed theater.

For if the 3rd person to pull out his or her gun did not see the 1st person who did,
that 2nd person might get blasted, just for tryin' to help...
My opinion only,
RW
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
If someone hates a woman because she is sexually active, we rightly consider that misogyny. That's not simply my train of logic, that's pretty much the common train of logic. Do you dispute that? And yet, hating a man for being sexually active is not misandry? No, that is a double standard.
Click to expand...

Two scenarios:

1) Jane Doe thinks that it's bad when a woman is sexually active, but okay (or at least not as bad) when a man is sexually active. For this reason, she hates women who are sexually active. That is misogynistic.

2) Jane Doe thinks that's it's perfectly fine (morally speaking) when a woman is sexually active. She hates sexually active women out of envy. That isn't misogynistic.
 
Snarf said:
Those were the only pseudo-homoerotic passages I could find in such short time after seeing people mention that he might have been gay. Whether he was or wasn't, or even a little bi, I can't really be sure, but thought I'd share what I found.
And I don't know about you, but as a heterosexual male I wouldn't have the slightest clue as to what "an elegant blazer coat" might look like.
Click to expand...

He was very interested in good clothes because he felt that they were one of the few ways in which he could stand out, since he didn't stand out physically (being of small and slight stature). I would know an elegant blazer coat if I saw one of my friends wearing one, and I'm not even very interested in fashion.

I think it's not surprising that he'd be interested in the appearance of other men he perceived as being more successful with females, since he felt so deficient in this regard. The fact is, those kinds of men ARE more successful with women, as a general (but not hard and fast) rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom