Non-Gun Mass Killings Will Become the Next New Trend

It seems that we can hardly go a week without some quiet, lonely and otherwise law-abiding guy shooting up a few people. Such mass shootings have created an outcry among morons who think that guns kill people. There is however considerable evidence that killing lots of people without guns is actually quite easy, if the persons doing it is so determined. Moreover there are excellent contemporary examples, such as the ongoing drug wars in Mexico, that show the inefficacy of legal gun control in preventing people from acquiring guns.

Now I don’t know whether these weekly mass-shootings will become more frequent (likely) or deadlier (somewhat less likely), but that discussion is best saved for another post. But there is another and far more interesting trend that I predict will emerge regardless of whether lawmakers try to pass more restrictive laws about gun ownership. I have partially tackled this issue in a previous post.

People who are unhappy with the system, and see no viable future, will increasingly kill others through means that are not gun or explosive linked.

If you think about it, guns are actually a pretty inefficient means for killing lots of people. There is a whole series of logistic issues starting with how many people you can reliably kill until your guns jam or other armed people intervene. The medical treatment of gunshot wounds has improved considerably and almost all those who don’t die until they receive medical care will survive. Under most conditions you can expect anywhere from 5-40 deaths per incident and maybe double the number of wounded people. In my opinion, it is not too efficient and lacks plausible deniability.

Many other methods are far more efficient and have the advantage of plausible deniability. For example: it is hard to ascertain whether a low level health-care worker who administered the wrong drug, forgot to prevent cross-contamination or acted in any other manner which results in the death of many patients is malicious or just incompetent. Similarly a worker in a meat processing plant whose actions allows millions of tons of highly contaminated meat from entering the food supply killing dozens of kids in a horribly painful way can always plead incompetence or poor training. A low-level guy in a company that makes or packages medicines whose actions cause entire batches of medicines to be contaminated or poisonous can always plead incompetence and bad direction from superiors. The same goes for underpaid and unhappy people running machines and systems whose malfunction can directly and indirectly kill scores of people and cause billions, if not trillions, in secondary and tertiary damage.

Ultimately all complex human systems depend on the non-human components to be well maintained and run by people who do a good job and are proactive. But you cannot motivate people to do that (beyond a few years) by putting a gun to their head or otherwise constantly threatening them with poverty and hunger. This is especially true in an age when even poor people do not have enough extra kids to play against each other or use as fuel or disposable for capitalism. Furthermore the complexity and inter-connectedness of our systems is so great, and redundancy so low, that seemingly small incidents of bad faith could easily amplify and destabilize the whole system.

It is far easier to stop a guy with a gun, than one who is using his trusted position and knowledge of a system to destabilize it in a lethal way.

The current levels of unemployment and underemployment in youth combined with social atomization and the general loss of faith in the ability of society to fulfill its end of the deal make the widespread emergence of such behavior a matter of when, not if.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    August 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Great article. When you are a part of a system … you can also be a part that fails. And the reason they think you are replace-able … is simply because they haven’t encountered someone who retaliates.
    The key takeaway is that regardless of the pretty lies heard growing up or in education, those who will retaliate whether visibly or covertly, get visibly “less abused”.
    Nothing makes a person stand taller than to benefit from revenge done wisely. And it’s very good for the soul too – you can turn the other cheek while practicing a handhold.

  2. August 25, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    Yeah, and you can f… up things even more if you attack the supra-structure of ideas. The results are even more lethal.

  3. August 26, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    one time in elementary school, I pooped in the lunchbox of someone who was picking on me….

    he smelled really bad and had a snotty English accent…..

    • P Ray
      August 27, 2012 at 4:04 am

      Did he have both those attributes before or after the encounter with the poop?

      • August 27, 2012 at 7:17 am


        before the lunchbox, he smelled of sweat and spices, he disappeared soon after…..

        I think he practiced the accent just to be more of a jerk…

        He even talked about buying people to make them slaves and said that I should be “purged.”

        I wonder if I had an early encounter with Diablo….

  4. August 27, 2012 at 9:19 am

    stonerwithaboner :
    He even talked about buying people to make them slaves and said that I should be “purged.”

    I do think buying people will come back, but I don’t think whites will do the buying.

    • P Ray
      August 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      You can’t buy people who’d rather starve then be bought.
      On that note, I wonder how many people like to starve?
      On the other hand – they can choose to be with someone who is going to scar them for life, the spurned ones can choose to write them off.
      Life’s way better when men stop playing white knight and just play “interested observer” 🙂

  5. InT
    August 28, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    For a prominent example of this passive-aggressive resistance, see MGTOW. Persistent MGTOWs will definitely damage the system over the long term. There’s probably a lot of it going on in the workforce too, and I think it’s contributing to our higher costs for lots of things relative to other countries.

    The vast majority of people will not go out with a bang if they feel short-changed. They just become passive aggressive. In fact that’s what the term was invented to describe- soldiers following orders poorly in hard-to-correct ways because they felt they were being treated badly.

    Only a relative handful will openly protest or seek publicity with violence.

    • P Ray
      August 29, 2012 at 2:10 am

      There’s probably a lot of it going on in the workforce too, and I think it’s contributing to our higher costs for lots of things relative to other countries.
      I dunno, how much does management compared to workers, and is their output … that much greater?
      If so, how do startups ever happen?

      The idea is being spread that “passive-aggressive” is “wrong”. When you can be smashed for being openly violent or disagreeing with authority … passive-aggressive makes PLENTY of sense indeed.

      If the system isn’t working, why should you disadvantage yourself for your superiors who work less and are paid so much more?

  1. August 25, 2012 at 7:02 pm
  2. July 26, 2015 at 10:14 pm
  3. August 26, 2017 at 4:54 pm
  4. February 22, 2018 at 6:17 pm
  5. March 25, 2018 at 9:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: