Predictions are very easily made, and most of us make them on a regular basis. When it comes to human behavior, any adult who has paid attention to the daily events during their (substantial) lifetime, is quite capable of making a "judgment call" about what will happen within the next "X" time period. Some predictions have contingency issues - "If action 'A' does not come to pass within the next six months, then action 'B' will probably happen during the following 90 days, because people will be trying to avoid the consequences of action 'C'." Other predictions have no contingencies, such as, "I believe there will be another mass shooting within the next 3-4 months".
That is essentially PPMs prediction, and it is based upon observed human behavior over her lifetime, and an emerging pattern of events over the past several years. She is entitled to her opinion - as are we all - and stating one's opinion should not be grounds for castigation. I predict that the sun will rise in the (agreed upon) east and set in the west tomorrow, as it has for millennia. The odds of my being correct are tremendous, but... inasmuch as most "natural occurrences" are not perfectly predictable, there is a very slight chance the sun may not come up at all tomorrow. Perhaps it was the timing of PPMs declaration that caused some discomfiture, rather than the declaration itself. A prediction of bad news is rarely welcomed, and never when it comes on the heels of a similar event. Just my thoughts. Pax...
I completely agree with eye95 that there is, "Nothing prescient or intelligent about predicting a shooting over a three- or four-month period. I'll predict another over the next three or four months." However, I disagree with his statement that, "to tie it to the election is just plain silly. The election is over. This shooting has zero to do with it." That statement is probably correct, but Lanza was one of two things:
(1) A nut job, or
(2) a truly evil sprit
Since there is no objective criteria by which to assess number (2), my money is on Lanza having been a nut job (however, something deep inside me tells me to go for the combination of (1) & (2)). Does calling him "mentally ill" make his crime any less heinous, or any more acceptable? Of course not. It doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does make such unconscionable behavior a bit more "understandable". It saves us (society-at-large) from going through the agonzingly slow, frustratingly complex tasks of trying to "sort out" the human mind, and identifying the "motivation" (the "why") behind such an otherwise incomprehensible act. The only reason "the why" is of the least importance, is to help us predict - and possibly avoid - the recurrence of such acts. We know almost as little about the human mind today, as we did 500 years ago. And there is only a slight increase in certainty when there has been apparent, observable physical trauma to the brain (which is not to be confused with the "mind" - the brain is simply a container). It could as easily be "tied to the election" as it could be to the phase of the mooon, or what Lanza ate for breakfast. Nutters don't have to have any (understandable) "reasoning" behind their actions. Therefore, to search for reasons is a "fool's errand". (Personally, I do not see FPS "games" as entirely without blame in the desensitization process of those who waste every available waking hour of every day playing [essentially "living"] in a fantasy world) :uhoh: Pax...
