this post was submitted on
290 points (81% like it)
372 up votes 82 down votes
shortlink:

toosoon

unsubscribe24,889 readers

~45 users here now

Too soon, man. Too soon.

If you're posting or commenting with blood, tits or better, tag that shit [nsfw] or risk getting a dirty look.

That's basically the only rule. If you don't get something or you don't feel something is toosoon then downvote it. "This isn't toosoon" isn't helpful - maybe try finding or creating something you feel is toosoon and posting that! If you're not sure whether or not a link you're about to post is too soon, then just post it in /r/Imgoingtohellforthis.

TooSoon deadpool:

  • Christopher Lee
  • Bobby Brown
  • Abe Vigoda
  • Rupert Murdoch
  • Kim Jong-Un
  • Lindsay Lohan
  • Keith Richards
  • Charlie Sheen
  • Fidel Castro
  • Cher
  • Paula Deen
  • Olivia de Havilland
  • George H. W. Bush
  • Pope Benedict XVI
  • Queen Elizabeth II
  • Stephen Hawking
  • Kirk Douglas
  • Bob Barker
  • James Holmes
  • Macaulay Culkin

None of these are nice places:

created by puredemoa community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

289
290

Its like clockwork (x imgoingtohell..) (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by danrennt98

all 29 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]MalcolmReynoldsWrap 14 points15 points ago

Well, our last mass shooting was really just the police not being good shots.

[–]RockemSockemBrobots 8 points9 points ago

Does the shooting at that high school in Baltimore yesterday not count?

[–]Bobby_Ooo 13 points14 points ago

If I don't hear about it in the Midwest then it is not worth the title of a mass shooting.

[–]SecondTalon 1 point2 points ago

How do we judge "Mass Shooting"

Obviously, shooting 80 people and killing 60.. that's a mass shooting.

Is shooting and killing two a mass shooting, or just a double murder?

Is attempting to shoot 80 and only getting three shots off a mass shooting, or just an Attempted mass shooting? In the Baltimore case, three shots were fired, one person wounded before the shooter was taken down and shooting stopped. Do we judge on what happened (1 wounded) or do we judge on what could have happened (Assuming a 15 round clip and one in the chamber, that's 16 shots before reloading. Assuming the accuracy was the same (two shots, one hit - got tackled and another shot fired for a total of three) do we assume there would be 8 hits per clip? Do we care about the lethality of the hits, or is it just that people were hit?

Basically - does that count as a mass shooting or not? If so, why? If not... why?

[–]danrennt98[S] 2 points3 points ago

I would say a mass shooting would mean someone/a few people coming to a public place with the intent to kill as many people as possible. And you would judge it by whether or not two or more people died. I think what happened in Maryland was an attempted mass shooting. It also doesn't seem like he really had an intent to kill a lot of people.

[–]Tatsumi 1 point2 points ago

Well it's Baltimore, so there would be mass shootings multiple times a day if you were to look at it like that.

[–]SecondTalon -1 points0 points ago

That's.. pretty much my point. Why is one incident a Mass Shooting and another a triple homicide?

Spoiler - It's probably racism, classism, or a mix of the two.

[–]Tatsumi 0 points1 point ago

I wouldn't call it racism at all, nor classism. Calling it a mass shooting is clearly a scare tactic, but otherwise I would base the classification on intent. Most 'mass shootings' are shootings with no real motive other than to shoot people, while the other was probably gang related where civilians get accidentally hit in the crossfire.

[–]SecondTalon 2 points3 points ago

I walk in to my "workplace" and shoot five people. It's a mass shooting.

A guy in a gang shoots five people, it's gang violence. Even though the guy shoots them in the context of them being in his workplace (maybe the corner where he sells drugs or something, I don't know), it's gang violence, not a mass shooting. Because he doesn't have what society considers a normal job, it doesn't count or.. what?

I mean, there is a difference, I understand.. but if I shoot my ex-boss and two other people get caught in the crossfire, is it different because it's my ex-boss? Would it be the same if I walked in to a competitor's business and shot their boss (and hit a few innocent bystanders in the process)? Or would that still be a mass shooting because it's a normal work environment?

[–]Tatsumi 1 point2 points ago

I only said gangs because compared to every other occupation you are much much more likely to be involved in a shooting. Shooting up your place of work would most likely be considered a mass shooting, while shooting one person (your competitor's boss) would most likely be a homicide. I see what you mean, and we really are just arguing the meaning of a very vague term.

Once again I really think it's just a scare tactic by the media to call it a mass shooting, as it seems like anyone could just randomly get shot at any time.

[–]SecondTalon 0 points1 point ago

I agree completely.

[–]themonkeyaintnodope 0 points1 point ago

At least 2 white people need to die for it to count.

[–]Bobby_Ooo -1 points0 points ago

If I don't hear about it in the Midwest then it is not worth the title of a mass shooting.

[–]glass_canon 4 points5 points ago

It's only going to get worse from here.

[–]ramsrgood 8 points9 points ago

well this is literally too soon, since it hasn't even happened yet. good job, i guess.

[–]spoonybard326 2 points3 points ago

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-celebrates-full-week-without-deadly-mass-sh,29293/

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

On the bright side, none of the shooters have actually done the whole suicide bombing spiel yet.

[–]Early_Kyler 7 points8 points ago

Its way easier to get guns in the US than it is to get high explosives. I'm sure they're around, but I could literally walk down the street and buy a gun.

[–]darklooshkin 2 points3 points ago

But styrofoam and gasoline are fairly abundant, right? Mix enough of it together, find the right spot for propagation and you could flood a CBD with home-made napalm.

[–]Early_Kyler 2 points3 points ago

That's true but you'd have to set it up to trap people in the fire if you want to kill a bunch of them. I'm just saying guns are simpler and can be done on a whim.

Obviously, I'm not recommending anybody do any of this though.

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

Me neither. As you said, far too fiddly to set up and way too easy to counter. Better off cutting a kilo of coke on its way to LA with some slow-acting poison. All those movie execs, agents, brokers, hookers... the financial backbone of the entertainment industry, gone.

And who'd be to blame? Small-time drug dealers, their wholesellers and transportation dudes. Nobody'd ever suspect the little dude with glasses that helped the mule get to his/her hotel room after they got pissed in Pasadena or something.

Not that anybody would, could or should ever do this, mind. For one, it's murder. For two, it'd be insanely hard to organise-get away with. For three, why? And for four, that kind of poison would be really hard to procure in the first place, probably harder than it'd be to con the mule.

Because honestly, guns? In gun-nut central? Why do so many wannabe mass murderers go for this option? Likelihood you'll get caught, 100%. Likelihood that you'll die before being sentenced, 95%. Likelihood that whatever caused you to do something so phenomenally stupid will be solved by this act of idiocy? 0%. Odds that you'll just get guns banned? Fairly high. So why do such a thing?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

Huh, never thought about it that way. And it raises a whole new set of questions that need to be answered. Starting with; can photo-realistic shooting games help curb mass shootings? And if they did, how can we measure the change? Artificial violence, if presented correctly, may offer a methadone fix for potential perpetrators and help contain them until the therapy yields results.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]darklooshkin 1 point2 points ago

Attitude, perhaps? Education, or lack thereof, even? Simply gearing people towards meeting one set of human psyche issues head-on while repressing another?

The deeper root implies a systemic society-wide failure to address issues that, for the vast majority of the population, can be dealt with by the person or community it affects but carries disastrous consequences for those simply unable to cope with the issue by themselves.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Early_Kyler 1 point2 points ago

I agree. My whole point was its easy for stupid and/or crazy people to get guns and they are the ones who tend to do these things. As far as motivation, I suppose that's as varied as the people who do it.

[–]darklooshkin 0 points1 point ago

Which, given that they're crazy, stupid or crazy stupid, means that it's almost exclusively 'for teh lulz!" as far as ideas are concerned. At least the killdozer guy was original...

[–]link090909 1 point2 points ago

especially with school back in session. shouldn't be too long

[–]leif777 0 points1 point ago

They come in threes...

[–]ryder77 0 points1 point ago

I'm waiting for someone to lock people in a theater then throw some cocktails and set the place on fire.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 19544 on app-117 running 74f9eb3.