Say the next insurance "adjustor" expresses his anger

[sarisataka]

by going to a company's HQ and does a mass shooting.
Will we* still "understand his frustration" and/or call him a hero? If not, what is the limit, or must killings be done one at a time?

{*Consider the "we" to be anything from the general population to any subset you wish}

[yagotme]

1. SOOOO many variables in this scenario...

What kind of gun was used? Is the shooter a POC? Were the victim(s) POC? What percentage of claims did the company deny? What was their profit this year? Who did the victim(s) vote for? Quite the sticky wicket, I'd say...

[sarisataka]

7. It does seem to have folks stumped

so many people who are vociferously "not caring" are suddenly silent.

[Silent Type]

2. If Luigi M had been denied needed care for his back injury, I might be sympathetic. But he got care from the

info we have now. Unfortunately, doctors weren't able to reverse nerve damage.

Sounds like any beef he has is with doctors.

[boston bean]

8. They may have refused some treatment he wanted and only approved the surgery he got n

I don’t know. But it is a possibility.

[Silent Type]

13. Definitely a possibility, but no evidence of that so far. Also, a possibility is that there is no treatment for

his remaining nerve issues. But he took it out on the wrong person.

I feel for the guy, whatever it is.

[Meowmee]

43. At this point no one knows what his insurance covered, unless they have access to his data

I read that he had an older surgery treatment for his condition for whatever reasons, which could have been influenced by insurance coverage.

[Walleye]

3. I don't understand why shooting people is considered a solution for anything. Unless it's a clear and present danger.

It never results in any change. The Unabomber didn’t. And “shining a spotlight“ or “bringing attention to” never works for anything.

[Silent Type]

14. 2nd Amendment Solutions are popular nowadays.

[Scrivener7]

37. Second amendment solutions have always been popular.

This one's just aimed at a new group, and this group has a voice to object.

[Avalon Sparks]

29. I'm sure some people

Didn’t understand the reason for pitchforks and knives back in the day either.

They don’t fear the populace anymore, and I support any and all means that might restore that fear.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

42. The Unabomber mainly went after academic people. My psych prof at Univ of Mich. was targeted.

James McConnell - a talented (and good guy) who did nothing to harm people. He was very prominent in his field. A student was severely injured and McConnell lost his hearing for a while. The shooter is pretty confused, comparing Professors to a greedy CEO.

[cactusfractal]

4. Yes... and no

We can understand the frustration that drives people to violence, and we can even lionize someone who takes that to the extreme Luigi did, because his target was decidedly, irrefutably making himself obscenely wealthy by letting insured Americans sicken and die. But no, we aren't likely to exalt someone who kills innocents, regardless of their motivations.

Brian Thompson was not innocent.

[yagotme]

9. Judge, jury, and executioner.

Heard that phrase before?

[DeepWinter]

10. Going to be a booming business for private security contractors

Blackwater's in for a booming 1st quarter.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

11. Of course not. No one's cheering a "mass murderer", we're cheering a mass murderer being killed.

It's like celebrating Assad getting ousted, winning WWII or if Putin were to get whacked. Bad guy dies, good guys cheer. That's kind of how these things work.

[sarisataka]

12. I am wondering if retribution is limited to executives

or does guilt extend to all employees. I have a bit of a personal interest in the answer.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

16. If you're asking me personally, only executives involved in the higher end decision making.

Those who guide the policies and procedures of a company. That's a pretty small subgroup, probably less than a hundredth of a percent of the company in question. Far better odds of survival there than the odds the company gives their clients.

[sarisataka]

17. That is good news

I am licensed in health and life but primarily work in P&C. I am thankful I have nothing to do with claim processing- I would want to just approve everyone unless it is obviously egregious.

[Hellbound Hellhound]

18. Oof. P&C? You have your own bucket of fish to deal with from within, less without.

I kid, it's a running gag at my old place of work that the Pinkies (PnC) were coming to get you so you gotta get 'em first.

Still, I'd wager you'll be fine. No more at risk than the janitor or even the claims agents.

Problem is, there's a lot of good people working in the industry, just putting in a 9/5, getting paid and going home. Those people certainly shouldn't have anything to fear. They're not the decisionmakers, the policymakers, the shareholders; Those are the people America is seething against. No one gives a care about what Jim in Marketing is up to, unless he designs a notably bad advertisement.

[sarisataka]

20. LOL

and everyone questions if the underwriters really want to insure people...

When people call about their home and auto going up I always commiserate that I understand. We do not get employee discounts and I can only wish I was paid what the latest celebrity received for making a 30 second commercial.

[DronePilot]

15. Will it be IN THE BACK.....?????

That seems to be the qualifier for most - as if it’s 1870 and people are having duels in the street.

[Trenzalore]

19. Well

There is a lot of anger. The question should not be what is wrong with people, but why are they so angry that this seems ok.

[proud patriot]

21. the killer is not a hero

he is a symptom of a illness .

the illness is our healthcare industry .

as long as we are ill as a country this symptom will continue .

if we want to stop the symptom we must cure the illness.

[mcar]

22. Yep. Suddenly vigilante "justice" seems quite popular

[orangecrush]

23. ....

[Scrivener7]

24. I don't think most people think he's a hero.

But for years, many gungeoneers here have laid school shootings at the feet of idiotic pablum like "must not restrict gun access! Must blame mental health services!"

How is this different?

That position by the gun lobby is always staunchly defended here by the "it's a clip not a magazine" crowd, and it has taught people here and throughout the country to respond to school shootings with learned helplessness.

So the goal of the gungeoneers has been met. In the situatuon you describe, people would be bothered for a day or two, wish we could get better gun laws, know there are too many gun fanboys preventing that, and let it go.

Just like we did with the last school shooting.

Wasn't that the plan?

Why is this different?

[sarisataka]

25. I suppose it isn't much different

and I suppose we can join the idiotic pablum, shrug our shoulders and give it an "oh, well. Mass shootings are just how it is now"

I have never found that attitude acceptable and do not plan to change my opinion now.

Murder has been wrong, murder is wrong, murder will be wrong.

[Scrivener7]

26. But in our country, where guns reign supreme,

mass shootings ARE just how it is now. Acceptable or not, if you support the gun lobby, you support that state of affairs.

And yes, your opinion is that murder is murder. Murder has always been murder. And your opinion doesn't matter. The power of the gun lobby is what matters.

It happens regularly to school children and staff. Incels often shoot up groups of women because no one will sleep with them.

Why would employees of companies that are actually hurting and killing people be exempt?

This is where our gun laws, and those who fight for gun access, have brought us. You may not like it, but you DO accept it.

[sarisataka]

27. I can only hold myself accountable to my values

While I recognize I cannot unilaterally induce change I can try to influence the country through contacting my reps because I DO NOT accept it.

I can also try to influence individuals, both in person and online, that rule by the barrel of a gun is not acceptable. We must fight for change even if such change is unlikely. Ironic since I have been called a gunhumper more than just a few times...

[Scrivener7]

30. All of this has been true for decades now.

I used to regularly do what you are talking about. But I came to recognize that I can't fight the gun lobby. I can't even have a conversation with gun owners on DU after a mass shooting, because, without exception, the effort is met only with bad faith attempts to shut the conversation down.

Only when enough gun owners feel heat, and when gun owners become the loudest voices for change, will anything change.

[sarisataka]

35. I have fought for decades

and will fight for decades more- my Polish heritage makes me stubborn.

Next mass shooting (hopefully a very long time from today- but I'm not confident of that) find me. We can discuss in good faith.

[Scrivener7]

36. .

[Bettie]

31. Do you think we need to have a conversation about health care?

Or does the death of this one guy render everything that industry does A-OK?

[sarisataka]

33. Yes, and I have posted my thoughts that

our health care system is a travesty in desperate need of reform.

I do not support murdering people as the method to make that change.

[Bettie]

34. I don't think murder is the answer

but, I wish there were a conversation other than "but the insurance companies have to have billions of dollars, so fuck anyone who needs care that might impact the bottom line".

[Iggo]

28. Why would you call him a hero?

Also, if trump’s car flips over and he dies, I’m gonna be happy about it. That doesn’t mean I’m pro cars-flipping-over.

[sarisataka]

32. I wouldn't call him a hero, would you?

I have never asked anyone to mourn or even to not celebrate if they are that type of person. My position is simply murder is wrong. Are you trying to say an accident is the same as premeditated murder?

[Iggo]

38. You throw around "we" and you get the reaction you get. That's on you.

And I’m saying the manner of his death has absolutely nothing to do with how happy I am that he’s dead.

That shouldn’t be hard to understand, but apparently it is.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. Can You Point Me To...

...the threads where people are calling him a hero?
Because I missed them. I see several people not having much sympathy for the victim, but that's a long way from calling a back-shooting murderer a hero.
People Get shot every day. I'm not considering this crime more heinous or noteworthy because the guy was a rich big-shot.
I keep seeing these lectures here in GD, but little evidence it's rampant.
The most common perspective seems more to ve "Who cares? One less parasite." That's not lionizing the shooter.

[sarisataka]

40. I did not claim any on DU were calling him a hero.

However after doing a search for the word hero, something you can do as well, I did find several posts calling him a hero.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. But, We're At DU...

...and you used "we". Not sure how you expected me to infer anything else.
Also, you're the one lecturing, not me. I think it pretty audacious of you to expect me to do searches to support your contention. I'm not contending anything.

[sarisataka]

44. I said we*

And then defined my use:

{*Consider the "we" to be anything from the general population to any subset you wish}

It appears you chose the subset to be DU and only DU.

[TBF]

45. How about "we" say the next insurance company expresses their

need for profit by denying 60% of all claims submitted next year.

How many deaths is that? What is the limit, or must we accept all of the denied claims as they rob us blind and post even higher profits for their shareholders, and higher bonuses for their executives?