Huh? Stephen Paddock “snapped” and murdered more than 50 people, while trying to murder more?
People have reasons for everything they say and do and feel. They may be way, way off-base with their reasons, but they have reasons.
It is conceivable that Paddock was truly psychotic: that he believed in a reality that was not reality. For example, if Paddock actually believed that the concert goers were a gathering of aliens about to start killing us all, then he did the moral thing that his psychotic mind told him to do: he went to war on our behalf.
I doubt he was psychotic. So, why — why would his “snap” naturally lead to mass murder? We had better explore this. The “conversation” Democrats say they want to have is a dodge, a ruse, a lie: they do not want to talk about the connections between their worldview and murder. They want to talk about more government and more government control.
He snapped? You can get depressed, and snap, and kill yourself; that happens pretty often. I know such people and you probably do too. They killed themselves; they saw no justification or need to take off on a homicidal binge.
The thoughtful murderer does not snap; the thoughtful murderer has a specific reason: revenge, removal of a witness, slaughter of the “infidels” to gain favor with Allah — money. Even a small amount of money apparently justifies murder to some. Situational rage with poor impulse control, maybe: but there’s a target for that murder and an identifiable motive.
How could anyone “snap” and start shooting as many random people as he can?
Well, there are reasons for why we do what we do, and we had better be asking the questions. I disagree with Paddock’s brother who speculated that the killer “snapped.” Paddock did not just “snap.” He was deluded through a process that led him to believe that we others simply do not matter. He believed that his target humans just counted for nothing. Indeed, in such worldview, eliminating “inferior” humans may be desirable. I assure you, Paddock reached that dark place reached by other murderers, where the victim’s life matters less than the killer’s motivation. In Paddock’s case, apparently everybody else’s life mattered for naught. And so, he had reasons for what he did. Sick, evil, deluded reasons, but he had reasons. He did not just “snap.” He saw his victims as things, not valuable children of God. Just “critters.”
It’s how he came to that conclusion that we ought to be having “the conservation” about.