Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Herra Tohtori on November 07, 2007, 08:44:54 pm
-
Well, now we have the first our very own of these incidents. I can barely contain my excitement. :ick:
First school shooting since 1989 when a teased 14-year-old shot two of his tormentors; first of kind where the primary motive seems to have been just to kill for killing's sake. About the only barely comparable incident was the Myyrmanni shopping centre bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myyrmanni_bombing), which was apparently an attempted bombing turned into accidental suicide bombing in 2002. It was a big buzz at the time as well, but school shooting has kinda different and definitely more sinister image at least in my mind.
BBC: Finland shocked at fatal shooting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7084045.stm)
CNN: Teen dead who opened fire on Finnish classmates, police say (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/07/school.shooting/index.html?iref=topnews)
Summary - same old story, but first of it's kind in Finland. Some guy who apparently was a real nutjob as far as ideology goes (but sadly, not nutjob enough to be noticed early enough or to affect the effectiveness - you know, the worst kind) had apparently been preparing this for a while, even going as far as announcing his intentions in YouTube (account and related videos removed after the incident). Went to school, opened fire, shot eight people to death before fatally injuring himself and dying later in the hospital.
Frakked up, but strangely it doesn't seem to affect me personally any more than, say, that incident in Virginia... Hopefully this kind of crap doesn't start to become more common around here, though.
Interestingly, the previously mentioned bombing in Myyrmanni resulted in seven dead, 166 injured, of which 66 required hospitalization of some degree afterwards... in this incident,
Annoyingly, there was a separate headline in Finnish national radio web pages announcing that the shooter "played war games in the net" [link (http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/oikea/id74434.html), Finnish, if anyone should care]. As if it needed a separate headline... makes it seem (again) like the fact he played video games was some kind of prime reason he flipped. :rolleyes: Oh well. At least they did say that he played computer games in addition to having "sharpshooting" as a hobby...
But then again, I have to wonder why they didn't make a separate headline about the guy having shooting as a hobby, which was IMHO more interesting and relevant to the case, seeing how much less people are into gun hobby than playing computer games in Finland amongst the young generation (guesstimated by Stetson-Harrison-method). I can only surmise that some flowerhat-lady in YLE deemed it worth the news value to tell about "war game hobby" separately.
The headline and the text was later updated to include more information and not only to tell about the twat's computer game hobby, though, so I suppose someone else agreed with me on this...
---
Discuss.
-
:rolleyes: Why? They kill 10 people and commit suicide.
Reasons: (may be many others)
1.) Too many people in the school/on this planet.
2.) Depressed.
3.) Was involved in some sort of religion that involved sacrifice?
4.) Was mentally ill, i.e. retarded or abused.
5.) Was bullied/revenge. ("Avenge me!")
6.) Still thought they were in the war that was in the computer game, etc.
7.) Was too pumped up by drugs, alcohol, music, etc.
8.) Believed they had a mission - made up by themselves.
9.) Target practice.
10.)Hates people who go to school.
11.)From 1.): Wanted to introduce population control.
12.)Had relationship problems.
EDIT: 13.) Is an eejit.
People these days have access to so many things that effect them in so many different ways these days, they end up being influenced so much that they can think anything. I think they mainly get depressed by a relationship failure, bullying or they take drugs or something. People may also become so stressed by the amount of work they have to do now in college.
People should take more notice of people so that they can have help or comfort when they need it. This senseless killing may lead to total destruction of humans in certain areas, of which may include the complete surface of this planet.
-
just saw this in the news. they always blame video games on this stuff but thats just one of many means for kids to escape reality. thats one thing that all theese shooters seem to have in common, they live in a fantasy world. they could just as easily loose themselves in movies or books, or what ever. thats what we get when we put our own entertainment above all else. i bet many of these kids were messed up to begin with, the games only gave them a way out. they isolate themselves and fall back on their social development. then when they had to face reality they cant deal with it and freak out.
-
Giving them a place to run instead of dealing with life is a bad idea.
Whether that be a game, a book, a movie, anything.
-
From what I gather, it seems to be a mix of Excalibur's reasons numbers 1, 8 and 11, in addition to 10 in form of "hates people period", not just those in school.
(...)
In the rambling text posted on the site, Auvinen [the gunman] said that he is "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and god-like atheist".
"I am prepared to fight and die for my cause," he wrote. "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."
(...)
Yepp, sounds like a messed up dude all right. At least he did seem to count himself into the group of unfit disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection, seeing as he did eliminate himself as well... :wtf: If it wasn't so morbid this would actually warrant a Darwin Award, but as a whole I don't think it would be appropriate.
...Anyone else find it kinda ironic that up here we seem to have the non-religious loons killing people instead of suicide bombers on a holy quest to seek martyrdom of some kind?
-
It's Nuke!
-
pretty much, shall i pose with a hammer, club, giant gun, ect :D
fortunately for you, a body count of no less than 7 billion is acceptable to me. so i very much doubt il go on a petty shooting spree.
-
Giving them a place to run instead of dealing with life is a bad idea.
Whether that be a game, a book, a movie, anything.
It's not as simple as that unfortunately, look at Charles Manson, claimed he heard voices on the Beatles White Album telling him to kill. We ALL escape using books, games etc, there isn't any harm in that, it's human, but if someone wants to receive messages telling them they are an Angel of Death, then they will, regardless of the media they get it from, but the Media is not the risk, the person is.
-
its never simple. the list of things that can drive a person to become a shooter is quite long. no one of them would cause it directly. probibly you could suffer a number of those conditions and be perfectly normal. you could have the first 4, someone else may have the next 3 and both would be normal, somone could have 1 3 5 and 7 and be totally nuts. when you blame one thing lilke violent video games, all your doing is creating a scapegoat. youre not doing anything to determine the bad combination. then of course 1357 might be a bad combination for personality a, but the same problems in a personality b would result in a normal individual.
-
its never simple. the list of things that can drive a person to become a shooter is quite long. no one of them would cause it directly. probibly you could suffer a number of those conditions and be perfectly normal.
Yeah, not all the incidents have the same reasons. I'd have to say when it comes to primary an secondary schools, often the shooter was a victim of bullying seeking a perverse form of justice (since the school administrators often do nothing about it, even when it literally happens in front of them).
-
You can read his "manifesto" here: http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article356699.ece
Of course there is a final solution too: death of entire human race. It would solve every problem of humanity. The faster human race is wiped out from this planet, the better... no one should be left alive. I have no mercy for the scum of earth, the pathetic human race.
-
Giving them a place to run instead of dealing with life is a bad idea.
Whether that be a game, a book, a movie, anything.
It's not as simple as that unfortunately, look at Charles Manson, claimed he heard voices on the Beatles White Album telling him to kill. We ALL escape using books, games etc, there isn't any harm in that, it's human, but if someone wants to receive messages telling them they are an Angel of Death, then they will, regardless of the media they get it from, but the Media is not the risk, the person is.
Oh, don't get me wrong, the person is just as much, or more, to blame as what sparked it. I'm just saying, allowing people to essentially detach from this world for too long is a bad idea. It isn't necessarily going to result in a school shooting, but it really isn't going to help the person any either.
-
Agreed, like anything done for pleasure, overdoing it can actually be harmful.
-
Yay... it wasn't in the US... for once.
-
Of course there is a final solution too: death of entire human race. It would solve every problem of humanity. The faster human race is wiped out from this planet, the better... no one should be left alive. I have no mercy for the scum of earth, the pathetic human race.
...Sound like anyone we know? *Hint-hint* :nervous:
-
i should put that in my siggy
-
Speak of the devil...
-
Apparently he was strongly influenced by one of the weirdest 'philosophers' in Finland... Linkola.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola
...advocates eugenics and genocide as a means to combat overpopulation. He has suggested that big cities should be attacked with nuclear weapons...
-
heh i sorta like this guy. reminds me of varg.
-
If only he started the purfication of hte human race with himself.... :p
-
Just a thing I noticed:
This maniac went to a school to shoot.
Virginia Tech was also in a school.
There are countless killing sprees in schools, some in churches and other places that have something in common.
Something that is a crazy-@$$-person-magnet, thanks to which they don't usually shoot people in the streets, shopping centers or other places that don't have it....
IT is called a gun (or dangerous object in general) ban.
The crazy-@$$-idiots carefully select their targets (unarmed, and scared to death as soon as SHTF) so they can fulfill their dreams of being some kind of untouchable diety. Once their mission is finished (ie. cops arrive), they take away their life before being welcomed to the real world by the local SWAT team.
-
when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.
-
when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.
Meaning accidental shootings will go way, way down. Meaning people won't try to use their gun to try to take out a mugger who also has a gun, killing one or both in the process. Meaning there will be fewer guns on the stolen/on the market after a while, decreasing the circulation.
Civilians possessing guns only gives the illusion of safety, when in fact they're only introducing another threat to their lives.
-
when you have gun bans then the only people who can have guns are the criminals.
Meaning accidental shootings will go way, way down. Meaning people won't try to use their gun to try to take out a mugger who also has a gun, killing one or both in the process. Meaning there will be fewer guns on the stolen/on the market after a while, decreasing the circulation.
Civilians possessing guns only gives the illusion of safety, when in fact they're only introducing another threat to their lives.
Just giving civilians guns and letting them figure it out for themselves will definitely get the above results.
Like I've said countless times in every single gun debate that HLP has had, firearm education is absolutely necessary. When you give someone a gun and just expect them to know how to deal with a mugger on the street, of course the situation won't turn out well. Texas seems to have the right idea with their carry licenses; they require that everyone applying for a concealed carry license pass a written test, marksmanship test, and go through all sorts of hurdles and classes to even get the license. The result? Only five permit-holders have been charged with murder since the program started, and of those 5, three were acquitted.
-
my point is anywone crazy enough to go out and shoot people will probibly find a way to get a weapon.
-
Yes.
It's a culture related thing more than how the weapons are regulated, I'd say. There's tons of guns in Finland, as you already probably know from media, yet the rate of crime-related gun usage is actually pretty low - even though violence is actually rather common in Finland internationally, if I recall correctly. Which in turn is more related to heavy alcohole consumption than previously planned bouts of killing...
Although it might simply be because Finnish people think it's more badass to kill or seriously maim others with an axe, puukko or a blunt object like a piece of two by four than firearms, which of course is true. It's more personal up close, firearms are a sissy way to solve disagreements (except against enemy at war, since enemies are not people as we all know). In Finland we call this Reilu Meininki. Also it's more difficult to aim when drunk.
</sarcasm>
In this matter I actually have to side with regulated-but-not-banned opinion, since it simply seems like the best compromise between the fact that some weapons are actually needed for hunting all those ***king elk/moose/whatever you call them big grey bastards who kill more people in Finland than any gunman on yearly basis, and the fact that there are bound to be some loons around. With regulation, most of the loons can hopefully be prevented from gaining access on weapons... but that's pretty much "the last line" of the defence IMHO, since as was pointed out, weapons are easy enough to get hold of no matter how loony you are - actually, I'd go as far as say that with enough madness (or Sparta, which to me seems like pretty much same thing though) behind the actions, one could potentially do even more damage in a school with a puukko or axe or even a crowbar than with a .22 semi-automatic pistol. Not necessarily more bodies, though that's also possible, but more damage.
It would be more effective to identify the problems and find a way to remove them instead of blaming too free access to weapons and violent computer games (of all the gore-filled media! [pun not intended]) in turns. I suppose the blaming is simply easier because the actual reasons have already been identified, but the sad lack of resources in mental health problem detection and treatment is gigantic in both US and Finland... which means it's virtually impossible to deal with the actual problem* - and with Finland's high rate of said problems it's actually a small wonder we don't have more of these people doing similar stunts. I just hope this case doesn't set an example of any kind... :sigh:
*obviously it just means that there are things deemed more important in the budget than healthcare. Which to me is kinda counter-intuitive but oh well. It just means that it doesn't matter if some loons stay unhinged, since getting more of them restrained would be unbeneficial as a whole... ie. would pay more than bring back as benefits. :ick:
-
They wasted space in the hospital for this guy.
-
They wasted space in the hospital for this guy.
Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them?
:nervous:
-
He must have been (at a certain point in time) one of the former. Not feeling it for this guy.
-
I don't "feel for him" either, but take an objective look on the matter.
Fact number one is that he had to be given treatment both from legal point of view - not doing it would've been involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence, as well as some other offenses related on abuse of positions and so on... it's all based on Montesquieu's separation of powers - police force belonging to the executive branch, it doesn't have any judicial power and thus is only allowed to very limited amount of "field justice", mainly in the use of power to neutralize hostiles (or should we say, "facilitate communications and terminate hostilities"... :drevil:). Against an injured person (suspect or otherwise) who is of no threat, the police doesn't have technically any power. Heck, you can even refuse to pay a speeding ticket and bring it on court AFAIK, in which you will be made to pay the ticket as well as the judiciary expenses, but you can do it - the ticket given by an officer isn't legally binding except if you accept it to be so, at least according to my understanding... but I'm getting on a tangent again.
Not to mention the fact that there wasn't really any surefire way to know that he indeed was the gunman at that point - strong suspicion, maybe, but no more.
Let's take a hypothetic situation. You stumble upon a grievous sight on some street or where-ever; there's ~10 people bleeding, unconscious and at varying condition depending on where they were injured, or dead. Clearly the injuries are bullet wounds. One person has a discharged pistol close to his or her hand and a bullet wound on head, but is still alive. Naturally, you call the paramedics and police and start the treatment of those alive by the best of your ability and possibly try to shout some people to help, but that is not of consequence.
Can you by some incredible intuition surely know that the one close to the gun is indeed the one responsible for the gory sight upon you? And that he or she is not another victim and the gun was placed close to him or her because the wound happened to look like it could be self-inflicted? You could discern it with forensic evidence, but that takes time and the profusively bleeding victims don't have that.
Even if there was no question, like if some of the injured were conscious enough to relay the message of the shooter's identity, would it really be ethically acceptably to leave the person entirely untreated? From my point of view, no. But then again, I don't believe in death as a method of punishment - it makes no sense since it doesn't actually punish anyone, it's just a legally practiced form of revenge where it's practiced...
Mainly because I cannot become an authority to decide who lives and who dies, it's out of my ability - similarly I can't really have any authority to decide who should live or die. Tolkien really summed it up pretty well in Gandalf's mouth as quoted in my previous message.
As to his treatment taking resources - well, tough. It can't really be helped. Such is the matter with every criminal, they take a lot of maintenance (food, quarters, healthcare etc.), and from strictly financial point of view, death penalty would indeed be a good way to simply get rid of the criminals - but it would take an infallible legal system to have even some [utilitarian] ethical argument behind it. And even then I'd regard it as a rather barbaric form of criminal management.
Would you support offing every criminal who takes resources from others, "more deserving" citizens? :nervous:
-
it seems to me that it would be a much more difficult job to detect and treat the mentally ill before they kill people. than it would be to deal with the consequences afterward. frankly there is no one with a system of mass screening of individuals for signs of mental distress. you could say make mandatory psyche evaluations every 6 months. even then you're limited by the skills of the professionals involved in the screening and they can miss details. it takes a trained psychiatrists many sessions to get a grasp on a patient's mental state. thats the way psychoanalysis works. even then they can miss things or the patient can conceal things intentionally.
you cant just use profiling either. lot of people and teens in particular talk about killing people or say there gonna kill people and dont. processes of sending every such individual to the school/office therapist for a brief chat to see if they are a threat, and send em on down to more skilled professionals if they set off any red flag. really that has the same flaws as making everyone see a shrink. also there will be ways of slipping through the cracks and theres not enough resources at hand to counter every possibility.
a simple system wont cut it at all. perhaps a system where behavior is monitored long term by video systems, personality assessments, periodic psyche assessments, ect. could all be cross referenced to identify those at risk of going berzerk. scan everybody to look for signs of instability, flag anything which could cause them to become dangerous. those who seem likely to cause trouble would be scrutinized more. enough stuff gets caught and then you bring em in for a full evaluation. of course this whole concept reaks of a totalitarian nanny state. and it wouldn't always work. for example what would constitute a sign of instability, video game playing, gun fascenation? sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (and in freud's case it was an oral fixation caused by his latent homosexuality, cocain addiction, and insestuous feelings about his mother).
-
it seems to me that it would be a much more difficult job to detect and treat the mentally ill before they kill people.
If only the problem were that, but they're actually having to send *really* frakked up people to be ill at their homes, popping some happy pills, because of lack of resources to provide them with appropriate treatment.
I completely agree that complete idiotproof psychoscreening would not work at all either, but at least it would be nice to have appropriate treatment for those who actually are notified, as well as those who try to get treatment by their own initiative but just won't get it to the level their condition would require.
Of course, those who are suitably frakked up can conceal it very well. Like you said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a malevolent person is just that, not all are explained by some psychological instability - people do bad stuff all the time, and I doubt even half of the cases where the culprit appeals to "diminished responsibility" by grounds of whatever psychological reason are actually as dimimished as they make themselves appear.
And turning the world into one big supercontrolled nanny state is one of the scenarios that give me the most heebie-jeebies of all. Unless I was in the control of the control, of course. That'd be kinda cool. For me. :shaking:
-
IT is called a gun (or dangerous object in general) ban.
Yes, the answer to all of this is to load our high schools with lots of guns, after all what could a bunch of teenagers possibly do with them other than shoot crazy people? :rolleyes: Oh wait.......
-
And turning the world into one big supercontrolled nanny state is one of the scenarios that give me the most heebie-jeebies of all.
Consequently, for such a nanny state to succeed, the control would have to be strict enough not allow one to even blink an eye without the government (or whatever) knowing it. If it was any less strict, a serious anti-government movement would be guaranteed to emerge - resulting in just more deaths.
-
I'm away from Finland for three days and look what happens! Gotta love the (eco-)intelligentsia, the creme of the society!
Some random thoughts follow:
This issue is not about gun control at all. It is related to the psychological problems people seem to have, and for some reason, in the extreme cases, instead of proudly committing suicide as generations and generations before, they develop it into anger and start shooting or blowing up people.
It is more of an issue of a large school vs. small school and large communities vs. small communities. The teachers cannot establish contact to pupils and these cases remain undetected. In large communities these kind of people find it easier to hide themselves to the masses.
Note that both Auvinen and Linkola are from Helsinki region, i.e. the area which has been separated from the nature (and from the reality in my opinion) quite well already. I have not met any people from this area (meaning the central and northern Finland), who would propose such opinions. Leaving the yard of my parents' house, there is an 80 km trip to next road through forest and that gives you totally different feeling of the issue, if your children might get eaten by the wolves that some people seem to be so keen on protecting.
Linkola and Auvinen have totally forgotten one thing: humans evolved into a society like this for a reason, which is pretty obvious if you try to live as a hunter & gatherer or as a primitive farmer. It has been survival of the fittest in the grand scale also, and human has been the fittest till this point. For me it seems that this "eco-intelligentsia" thinks that the humans have evolved above the natural selection, and their beloved natural selection will not hold with human any more! Which is furthest from the truth, if you look at the history of the Earth.
What I think about Auvinen is that he was an idealist, as many people at his age, but probably found out that the ideals are quite far away from the real world - like the rest of us also. But for some reason he wanted revenge for being rendered 'uncompetitive' because of the strict belief in ideals. And here comes one of the things, I find that the younger generations are ill-equipped to face such problems since they have no experience of handling difficult times - or they think they have but they don't. In 1950s some pupils had to ski 40 kilometers to attend school to give you a perspective. It is also about the same old problem, the school teaches you about anything else but how to live the normal life. What means would there be to correct this? Smaller schools and more community work would be my answer.
For some reason I think they should have published the picture of this guy with half of his head missing (next to the alive and well picture of course) and brain tissue visible and plastered everywhere with the title like: "The Natural Selector takes his own life" to show the probable follow-uppers what it is all about and reduce the possible martyrdom-value (and I know .22 cal doesn't do that kind of damage but I think you got the idea what I was trying to say). On the other hand, some other types of disturbed people might find those pictures highly intriguing.
Mika
-
Well, technicly, there is no real natural selection for humans..even the dumbest, mentally retarded and most unfit are allowed to have children and keep their bad genes in the circulation... :blah:
There IS no selection would be a more proper term...everything goes. :lol:
-
Very true.
-
Well, technicly, there is no real natural selection for humans..even the dumbest, mentally retarded and most unfit are allowed to have children and keep their bad genes in the circulation... :blah:
There IS no selection would be a more proper term...everything goes. :lol:
What? Of course there is a natural selection in the process, it's just pronounced to social selection as opposed to getting eaten. Humans are part of nature, as well as our society.
What you mean to say is that the selection pressures on human species have changed so much - especially in rich industrialized countries - that survivability (in nature) is no more the single most important factor in the evolution process, but rather "social aptness", or in language, ability to get laid and have babies to continue their genes. Of course it's still important to survive until the point where you can continue your genes with someone, but unless you're a street kid used to evading pimps and drug dealers and their bullets, survivability in western society almost equals to keeping yourself out of troube and having luck to avoid freak accidents.
Pretty much the same happens to most species that lack a natural enemy and if there's abundance of food... the species' selection process becomes more social than based on brute force and survivability. Hell, the big whales try to literally sing each other to submission to impress the females. If they were to fight, they would likely both get severely injured. Chimps and gorillas have intricate social structures as well. Humans just have changed the life style so that naturally occurring hazards are no longer acting as effective selection methods - the selection for much of human species has become self-inflicted. Even medical conditions previously lethal at young age are now treated to the extent that ill people live long enough to have children (which in itself is a good thing) and pass their potentially illness-prone genotype further in the chain of evolution (which is regrettable). So you can have kids in industrialized country, even if in a hunter-gatherer-society with willow bark and other plants as medicine you would have succumbed to genetic defects long before getting laid.
Obviously, in locations like sub-Saharan Africa, survivability still has a *lot* higher role in the evolution of the species. As well as during pandemic diseases, wars, droughts, accidents and other stuff like that that increases the death rate.
-
i wonder how many of theese shootings would be avoided if we would just leegalize suicide
-
current social "selection" = not much of a selection.
Like I said, even retards can pass on their genes.
-
i think the point is that survival is a non issue with modern humans. survivals practically a gaurantee in the wealthy parts of the wrold. even the bums on the street in the poorest american citys will breed (mainly because they know child = welfare = free money). few people recall darwin's theory of sexual selection, which is accurate when survival is certain. social aptitude is far more important as far as breeding goes. so in a future wrold everyone will be hot as hell, but they will have the brains of a doorknob.
all the more reason to agree with the shooter :D
-
i wonder how many of theese shootings would be avoided if we would just leegalize suicide
Suicide isn't legal? :wtf: Even if it isn't, does it really matter? What are they going to do, haul your mangled corpse into the courtroom and try you for comitting suicide, then send your corpse to jail?
-
i wonder how many of theese shootings would be avoided if we would just leegalize suicide
Suicide isn't legal? :wtf: Even if it isn't, does it really matter? What are they going to do, haul your mangled corpse into the courtroom and try you for comitting suicide, then send your corpse to jail?
I think he means assisted suicide. State- or medically-assisted suicide, or even just assisting the act in general, is currently universally illegal.
-
anybody can put a gun to their head and pull a trigger, not everyone will die from it. there have been cases where failed suicide victims have been, blinded, mutilated, maimed, or rendered brain dead. killing a human being isnt as easy as one would believe. theres really no reliable way to cause a human death and have it work every time. plus those who are in a suicidal state are not in the best position to think about how to succeed in suicide. there is practically no support for those who wish to kill themselves. i think it should be an option for the extremely mentally ill as well as the terminally ill and perhaps even criminals (one might perfer to die than to live a life sentance for example). i dont think the assistance should perform the suicide, rather just provide reliable means what wont cause more problems in the process.
-
theres really no reliable way to cause a human death and have it work every time.
So jumping off the top floor of the empire state building without a parachute wouldn't kill someone?
-
Regarding capital punishment, I don't think it should be seen as a punishment if it is done correctly (there is no pain), it is more like relieving the society from that particular individual and nothing more.
About the natural selection, I don't buy it that human would have evolved above it. If the future will develop individuals that look really hot, but at the same time reduce the brain mass, it will be them that will die when the conditions change (environment, war, disease, whatever). This is because they will be using too much energy on trying to look good while the persons who have kept their brain mass will use it to get through the difficult time. Besides, isn't the immunic response of the human being going downwards all the time?
I'll post some more of this later.
-
theres really no reliable way to cause a human death and have it work every time.
So jumping off the top floor of the empire state building without a parachute wouldn't kill someone?
It may sound redicilous but there is a slim chance he just might survive.
-
And its not exactly practical, and perhaps a bit rude towards other people :D
-
theres really no reliable way to cause a human death and have it work every time.
So jumping off the top floor of the empire state building without a parachute wouldn't kill someone?
Flight Sergeant Nick Alkemade (died June 22, 1987) was a tail gunner for an Royal Air Force Avro Lancaster Bomber during World War II who survived a fall of 18,045 feet (5500 meters) without a parachute after his plane was shot down over Germany.
On March 23, 1944, Alkemade's plane was flying near Berlin, Germany, when it was attacked by a Luftwaffe Junkers Ju 88 fighter plane, caught fire and began to spiral out of control. Because his parachute was in the cabin, Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft, preferring his death to be quick.
Alkemade fell 18,045 feet (5500 meters) to the ground below. His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg.
On 3 January 1943 Magee's B-17 was on a daylight bombing run over Saint-Nazaire, France when German fighters shot off a section of the right wing causing the aircraft to enter a deadly spin. This was Magee's seventh mission.
Magee was wounded in the attack but managed to escape from the ball turret. Unfortunately, his parachute had been damaged and rendered useless by the attack, so having no choice, he leapt from the plane without a parachute, rapidly losing consciousness due to the altitude.
Magee fell over four miles before crashing through the glass roof of the St. Nazaire railroad station. Somehow the glass roof cushioned Magee's impact and rescuers found him still alive on the floor of the station.
Lieutenant I. M. Chisov of the former Soviet Union was flying his Ilyushin 4 on a bitter cold day in January 1942, when it was attacked by 12 German Messerschmitts. Convinced that he had no chance of surviving if he staged with his badly battered plane, Chisov bailed out at 21,980 feet. With the fighters still buzzing around, Chisov cleverly decided to fall freely out of the arena. It was his plan not to open his chute until he was down to only 1000 ft above the ground. Unfortunately, he lost consciousness en route. As luck would have it, he crashed at the edge of a steep ravine covered with 3 ft of snow. Hitting at about 120 mi/h, he plowed along its slope until he came to rest at the bottom. Chisov awoke 20 min later, bruised and sore, but miraclously he had suffered only a concussion of the spine and a fractured pelvis. Three and one-half months later he was back at work as a flight instructor.
If they all could survive much longer drops then let's not make any assumptions about falling off a tall building. Especially considering the way that skyscrapers tend to have all kinds of effects on the wind.
-
Thing is though, kara, that despite the ridiculously high altitudes, all of those people were cushioned through some form or another. Purely jumping off of the Empire State Building and landing splat on the concrete sidewalk or paved road would most certainly result in a New Yorker's brains being projected across the block.
-
but who's to say you wouldn't get lucky and have something cushion your fall in New York? The chances are slim, but so are the chances of surviving a fall from an airplane.
-
Thing is though, kara, that despite the ridiculously high altitudes, all of those people were cushioned through some form or another. Purely jumping off of the Empire State Building and landing splat on the concrete sidewalk or paved road would most certainly result in a New Yorker's brains being projected across the block.
How do you guarantee hitting the sidewalk though?
For a start there is a fair chance that you'll hit someone before the sidewalk. Then there is a chance of being blown into a tree or a variety of other possibilities.
Oh and before we go any further with this conversation, yes it wasn't the top but I think this should be close enough to shut anyone else up.
In 1979, Elvita Adams jumped from the observation platform on the 86th floor of the Empire State Building in an attempt to commit suicide. However Elvita’s attempt was foiled when a sudden gust of wind blew her back onto the 85th floor ledge. A security guard opened the window and pulled her to safety. She escaped with only a broken leg,
Ironically I went looking for that story without realising it was actually from the building in question. :lol: Wikipedia has only a short entry on the subject so I'm quoting out of a book I had the story in.
-
Yup. the human body can be incredibly resiliant sometimes...otehr times it can be incredible fragile.
Not to metion otehr factors, such as luck ;7
-
considering the top of the empire state building is completely caged i doubt anyone could jump off it. though in new york it would be fairly easy to find a building to jump off of. then again not everyone lives in new york. also one must consider what if you land on something, like a group of children, and what of property damage. if theyre gonna kill themselves they might as well do it under controlled means so as to cause no harm anyone or destroy property, so that they dont become vegetables that society has to pay to keep alive.
-
Actually even with the cage people still manage to jump off it. Someone did it this year.
It's not a complete cage. It's still open to air (at least it was when I was there).
-
Flight Sergeant Nick Alkemade (died June 22, 1987)
He died the same day I was born... creepy. :nervous:
Listen, just so I can pre-empt the inevitable conversation, can we avoid the "if you want to make sure, do this" discussion that this thread seems to be heading for? Far be it for me to stifle an open discussion, but let's not degrade the forum to that level, shall we?
-
there was this cool documentary about people who jumped off the golden gate bridge, with actual footage of people jumping, and interviews with a survivor and also families of victims, costgaurd, ect. aparently its a very common place for jumpers. they dont even bother to put up a fence.
Flight Sergeant Nick Alkemade (died June 22, 1987)
He died the same day I was born... creepy. :nervous:
Listen, just so I can pre-empt the inevitable conversation, can we avoid the "if you want to make sure, do this" discussion that this thread seems to be heading for? Far be it for me to stifle an open discussion, but let's not degrade the forum to that level, shall we?
indeed. most of the ideas people come up with are just urban legend anyway. with little or no factual evidence backing it up. there really is no surefire 100% effective means of suicide. theres always gonna be human error and fear components, also theese people arent thinking clearly. so theres lots that can go wrong.
-
Jumping into an erupting volcano - surely you can't die if you actually succeed in jumping into the lava, and don't get saved by some large gust of wind that somehow blows a human back up onto the ledge.
If there weren't so many people in one area, and you weren't allowed to have a relationship until after 18 and schools had maximum security measures (it seems we're heading that way anyway), then there would be no school shootings, unless they were very smart. (assuming the security is as well)
I don't think you will ever stop suicide.
On a side note, have there been stories of animal suicides? (beside the lemmings that run off cliff tops or whatever)
EDIT:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Do-Animals-Commit-Suicide-63441.shtml
Another issue: Lemmings do not commit suicide! Each 4 years there is a cyclic demographical boom of the lemmings (small arctic rodents) followed by a desperate massive migration during which many die throwing themselves into the rivers, lakes and sea.
It has been regarded as a collective suicide, conscious or involuntary, caused by over-population. In reality, being solitary rodents by nature, when the population booms, the stronger lemmings drive the weaker and younger ones off long before the food is depleted.
The young lemmings disperse in random directions looking for vacant territory. Geographical features constrain their movements and channel them into a relatively narrow corridor and large numbers can build up leading to social friction, distress and eventually a mass panic can follow and they flee in all directions, but they do not deliberately march into the sea; this is just pure fantasy.
:nervous: Hopefully humans won't have to do this.
-
and elephants engage in butseks.
-
:nervous: Hopefully humans won't have to do this.
Pffff we haven't even started making cities underwater yet... **goes off dreaming about living in a bubble-city.....
-
Pffff we haven't even started making cities underwater yet... **goes off dreaming about living in a bubble-city.....
Quote from: Andrew Ryan in 1960 (http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/home.html)...I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose.. RAPTURE.
:nervous: