There is a better way of preventing mass murderers, tie consequences to their actions (i.e. a deterrent) .
Trump said it himself, "You need to go after their families".
Read pic related, tell me why this wouldn't be the single most effective way to prevent terrorism and mass murder?
Think it is a bit to extreme? I don't.
Extreme actions should have extreme consequences.
Other urls found in this thread:
psychologytoday.com
defence.pk
youtube.com
twitter.com
The thing is with these people is that most of them have gone off the hinges so they would be too far gone for threats to really matter
Wow, surely nothing could go wrong in this exercise of power.
>hate a family
>frame one of them for a bombing/shooting/whatever
>watch the family get rounded up and executed
>laugh
Also, I think he didn't do it but that's beside the point, and a topic plenty of other threads are already discussing.
The media keep harping on about gun control and how to "prevent" things like this from occurring.
So let's assume he did do it for purposes of discussion for mass murder prevention policy.
I don't think so. They mere thought of putting their most beloved people in danger is going to make them think twice.
He liked his wife enough to send her money and according to his brother, his shared with he and his family his financial success as an account. If he didn't care about these people, he would have told them to pound sand.
Concern for the well being of family biologically can supersede individual concern. They might be the only thing that matters to these sick pups.
No private citizen would want to frame anyone because if they got caught, they and their loved ones be the ones to suffer.
The risk is too great for the reward. Nobody is going to risk getting their own family executed for the lolz.
False flags would be much harder to orchestrate to because the proceedings to familial execution would be court evidence. Testimonies to the perpetrators mental state, relation, quirks, behaviors, would all become a matter of public record for people to investigate.
Even if there is one false flag, it would discourage real shooters from acting out.
Also, false flags could no longer be used as a pretense for gun control because the remedy for them would already be in place.
An actual solution.
nice
We need to spread this idea.
it would work.
as it stands now, liberals have the upper hand for these sort of arguements because right-wingers are backed into a corner "so are you saying we do NOTHING", many unfortunately concede saying a "part and parcel" argument.
Here is a way to get out of that corner and say "here's a better idea, moron".
It would never happen
This is some communist guilt-by-association shit. Besides, criminal psychopaths don't care about their families or friends.
You cannot hold innocent people accountable for an individual's actions. If my sister who I haven't spoken to or seen for years suddenly came back from Israel and went on a rampage without me knowing she was in the country why should I be held to account?
This kind of thinking is a trap. Crazy people can't be reasoned with. They'll just kill their families themselves.
What a stupid fucking idea it opens the gates for reparations and imprisoning whitey for past crimes. Don't be stupid op
>guilt-by-association
It's called a consequence. Communist tie it to harsh political shit so it can affect almost anyone.
This would only be reserved for mass murderers.
>Besides, criminal psychopaths don't care about their families or friends.
Wrong.
Go after the only things in the world they care about, and you're likely to prevent most if not all mass shootings.
worth it. removes broken families and gives quite an incentive to raise your kid to not hate you
Clear violation of at least 3 amendments. Conspirators need to be prosecuted and charged as such.
kill yourself you fucking kike
>dindu nuffin argument
It doesn't matter. Actions should have consequences.
Extreme actions warrant extreme consequences.
>You cannot hold innocent people accountable for an individual's actions.
You can if it would prevent the murders of even more innocent people.
They also are usually not innocent either. If you have a violent dog, you need to put it down. If you have a kid that bites other kids, you need to take him away to be institutionalized.
Failure to do so often makes dog owner or parent liable.
There also is the genetic imperative. Psychopathic genes need to be eradicated root and branch.
YOUR MUSIC'S BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD
China took a similar approach when a Chinese national was kidnapped in Iraq. They responded by taking the terrorists family and negotiated for their man back under the threat of harm to the terrorists family. I don't have a good link for this (heard this from a classmate years ago) but this board seems to be talking about the same incident:
What happens when a democrat eventually gets in the white house again? What would stop them from signing an executive order applying this logic to all crime to cement themselves as the greatest busy body do gooder ever?
>you're 15 and stole a bottle of liquor to have fun with friends
>now you and your friends entire lineage is erased from the earth because crime is bad m'kay
This is British tier wankery
>There also is the genetic imperative. Psychopathic genes need to be eradicated root and branch.
Nwo's wet dream right there. An entire population of soft weaklings that have emotional breakdowns at the mere mention of violence.
If we're weeding out anything based on genetics it's gonna be stupid people in which case you and your lineage get a spot at the front of the line.
As suggested, it would only affect mass murderers.
To say it would be extended into other criminal matters is absurd. Liberals make the same slippery slope argument about the death penalty.
>What would stop them from signing an executive order applying this logic to all crime to cement themselves as the greatest busy body do gooder ever?
>another slippery slope
The same thing stopping them from signing an executive order and applying the death penalty to political opponents.
It would be strictly stipulated that it can only apply to families of mass murderers and terrorists.
What's the plan when those families inevitably resort to violence and others join them to prevent their state sponsored murder?
It's a terrible idea. It goes against the founding creed of this nation and would never get public support. Leave the brits to do dumbass British shit.
Getting rid of violent people that snap and kill a bunch of people for no reason, won't result in a "population of soft weaklings".
Slippery slope again. If the state had gotten so egregious for people to be in open revolt against it, it likely would be taking out political opponents regardless if this statute designed explicitly for mass murderers was in place.
>It goes against the founding creed of this nation and would never get public support.
It depends. I'm sure many people would rather have this than gun control.
As for going against the founding creed, I concede and agree.
...
What you've failed to realize is executions are on the same slope as gun control. When the Gov starts executing SOMEONE is going to want to fight back. Have to get rid of all the guns first.
The right approach to dealing with mass shootings is media control. Mass shooters primary goal is exiting society in a way that will get them as much infamy as possible and it's the media that gives it to them. Mass shootings DID NOT HAPPEN before mass televised media despite "military" firearms being more easily available than they are today and they were exceedingly rare before Columbine happened and the media made Eric and Dylan antiheroes for a new generation. If the media had the proper restraint in reporting on mass shooters and denied them the infamy they crave you would see a steep decline in it, and they know this yet continue to do it anyway for ratings.
This is the Michael Moore argument.
The media takes advantage of these shootings though.