A proposal. National Monument for Mass Shooting Victims.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Metallicus

As I stated above I am not against the national shooting victims memorial. I don't agree with its necessity, but I don't oppose it per se. .

Your post reminded me of a conversation I had a few years ago. In the years after 9/11, many monuments were erected and many, many streets were renamed in my town for those who had died during the attack. I had commented a few years ago that so many streets being renamed seemed to (almost) have the opposite affect of what was trying to be achieved. If EVERYTHING is meant as a meaningful memorial, then none of them really have much meaning.

(Apologies if I went a little off thread there).

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well I didn't make this political. Who brought in doctor's malpractice and abortion? Some politicize things so as to absolve themselves of any societal responsibility. My focus has always been on the victims.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Why not open a thread about that? This isn't political. This is about being human.

I call shenanigans on that claim. Of course it is being political.

Wow, you can read my thoughts and motivations? I'll have to go with your assessment then. I was being a manipulated ass.

a reply to: intrepid

Are you talking about one that would have names added to it or just one to have the names of the current shootings?

Cause if names are added to it I'd worry about a loon trying to get a high score and fill the board. We already know the people causing the death see no value in others lives other then to promote or highlight themselves. I just wouldn't want something made to remember the lose, turned in to a score board.

a reply to: ObjectZero

Isn't that the motivation of shooters without a memorial? I can't see where this would motivate anyone, that's already there.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well I didn't make this political. Who brought in doctor's malpractice and abortion? Some politicize things so as to absolve themselves of any societal responsibility. My focus has always been on the victims.

I am trying to understand why this particular idea is more important than doctor's malpractice, auto-accident victims and the millions of aborted humans. It IS politically motivated and is about an agenda. There are 'victims' out there of all kinds of tragedy and we don't have national memorials for them nor do we NEED them.

This entire thread was posted in the interest of promoting the anti-gun agenda and the very existence of this 'idea' is agenda driven. To say otherwise is naive.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This entire thread was posted in the interest of promoting the anti-gun agenda and the very existence of this 'idea' is agenda driven. To say otherwise is naive.

Reading comprehension. Maybe my next thread. How could this possibly be about the anti-gum agenda?

a reply to: intrepid

So, concern over 1 million+ aborted lives per year and 400,000+ medical blunder related deaths per year, both focused on the victims is political, but a thread based on mass shootings, focused on the victims, is not?

Some people reject societal responsibility because they recognize that personal responsibility is really, really important and society's rejection of personal responsibility makes them ill. Others reject societal responsibility because society, as a whole, is little more than who can bitch the loudest and complain the most, even to the detriment of the majority's opinions and the law, itself. Still others reject societal responsibility because they find it pretty goddamned offensive that their concern over 1.5 million lives is dismissed, but they're goaded into accepting major changes to their own lives and rights over a handful of annual events that are sensationalized by a politically driven media.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

So, concern over 1 million+ aborted lives per year and 400,000+ medical blunder related deaths per year, both focused on the victims is political, but a thread based on mass shootings, focused on the victims, is not?

No. Why would it be? How does this affect any American in a negative way?

a reply to: intrepid

Yes they're going to go out and kill people, but I don't think most have goal set in mind for number. This would put a goal post out there for everyone to look at. That their actions could be remember for as long at that memorial stands. But that's only if you keep adding names to it. If you do a general memorial that does not icon one mass killing or the number of people killed during them. Than it might be fine.

Having a memorial for mass shooting victims is not a good idea. It ilk's of social engineering and agenda pushing. I mean why have a memorial when families who have suffered loved ones already remember them in their own way. There is no need to nationalize such things. And besides should the dead children of Sandy Hook be included regardless if it was a real event on not.

In conclusion it does not solve the underlying issues of why mass shootings by lone gunmen occur nor will it prevent future death tolls from such events. Having a memorial is just for the feel good factor and ultimately means and represents nothing of substance.

Jeffery Dahmers victims getting a monument was turned down, he was a serial killer that terrorized an awful lot of people alot like mass murderers. The thing is though every year they have a remembrance day which in my opinion should be sufficient. In respective communities the school should be the monument along with a day to reflect and remember.

So the reasoning is that we don't want the victims to be forgotten, right?

Don't most of these areas where events take place create memorials at or near the location of the event? So we need another one to make sure that they're really, really never forgotten?

I'm not going to get in to this would give shooters a "goal" to aim for or whatever. Or abortion. Or any of that. But I do see a memorial like this one proposed becoming a highly, highly politicized one very quickly. Both sides of the gun lobby will likely try to use it.

But my main point is that many of the ones I'm familiar with have memorials for them already. Perhaps a small one, but there is one.

originally posted by: Tindalos2013
In conclusion it does not solve the underlying issues of why mass shootings by lone gunmen occur nor will it prevent future death tolls from such events.

This is something I've come to accept. My focus is still on the victims though.

And besides should the dead children of Sandy Hook be included....

Why not? What are their names?

a reply to: intrepid

Please define, "mass shooting."

As I understood it there was a complete lock down on the names of the children at Sandy Hook so there would be no way of knowing.

originally posted by: intrepid
Why not? What are their names?

What's the name of the lady and her children who were killed by a drunk driving Gordon House in Albuquerque 20 years ago? What's my cousin's name who was beaten and stabbed to death in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago? What are the names of all the Americans who have worked themselves into an early grave providing for their families and communities? What are the names of all those who have died, through no fault of their own, from faulty products or items used by other than their intended purpose?

We have "memorials" for all of these people... they're called gravestones, eulogies, legacies in the form of those who loved them, and I fail to see any reason other than politics to elevate or separate any one particular group to the point where they warrant reception of a national monument aside from those who truly died in service to this country. Sorry to be blunt, but falling victim to some imbecile hopped up on pharamceuticals and SSRIs isn't the same as dying in a theater of war.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

And those tragedies are a direct attack not on individuals but on society as well?

You still didn't answer my question. What negative impact would this have on Americans?

ETA: But a memorial for those that all they did was go to work on 911 is fine?

I'll also add this unpopular opinion to the mix: Far fewer people would have given the prolonged, ridiculously emotional reaction to the lion a dentist shot in Africa had the media failed to capitalize on the humanization of said lion. "Dentist shoots African lion" lacks the emotional punch of "Dentist shoots Cecil the lion." They spread that second headline and suddenly we have a nation tearing their clothes and throwing dirt on their heads crying "No! Why did you kill Cecil?" Same thing here... much the same as Obama was determined to politicize the Oregon shooting, even going there despite that community telling him he wasn't welcome there, these stunts serve only to push political agendas and sensationalize coverage of incidents.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

More rhetoric. OK 3rd time..... how does this affect Americans in a negative way?