RAIMIUS wrote:
Active shooters suck. I can ALMOST understand Uzique's logic, but the targets most active shooters pick don't even know them. We're talking some REALLY twisted attempts at logic. Take the NIU shooter. He had never attended class with his victims, as he had already graduated. The New Life Church shooter took out a family in the parking lot because he didn't like Christians. (Fortunately, he was stopped just inside the main entrance.) I really doubt Cho felt belittled by the majority of his victims at VT. The shooter in Pittsburgh hated women, and picked a class at a gym. I doubt they did anything to him.
In this case, the Columbine killers almost seem to be an exception. They did seek retribution from those who bullied them. (They also targeted others, so even that example isn't quite accurate.)
The problem is most of these shooters feel victimized by the world, and decide to take it out on random people. There is no justice or fairness in that. It's not retribution, it's bloodlust and egotism.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I don't agree. There is logic to attacking a group of people at a church if you hate Christians. Not saying its a logical thing to do for the everyman, but a logical target if you're sick enough to act so violently. The 24 Hour Fitness shooter had so much animosity towards women, he attacked an all female class in the gym. The Columbine shooters follow this pattern, but more specifically. I don't recall if they targeted specific names but they did attack members of certain cliques in the school, e.g. the jocks who traditionally wore their hats perpetually and backwards.
It may not be retribution on specific people, but if they're somehow linked to a group or stereotype that the shooter wants revenge against, it makes no difference to the attacker.
In other cases, like NIU, the shooter was simply very sick but perhaps didn't have specific animosity, just the urge to lash out and went where he thought of first. I certainly can't say for sure.