…and some of us are merely positing that what you perceive as “glee” or being “happy” may in fact be post-stress elation for reasons previously mentioned. People don’t always react with the logic of Spock or the reflection of Gandhi after being put in a position where it was kill, or be killed, and this post-stress reaction could last for some time. Can you accept that that may be possible?
I take people at their word. If someone says killing bad guys makes them “happy”, I assume they mean that in the common understanding of the word. I don’t see why I should parse their statements for a meaning that most people don’t immediately associate with happy.
As I said though, I may be an outlier.
Then, taking you at YOUR word, you believe that ‘happy’ equates’ to ‘glee’, right?
ETA: I haven’t seen a quote that ‘killing bad guys makes’ her ‘happy’…do you have such a quote? I’d like to see that statement in some sort of context, if you don’t mind.
-XT
It is a common synonym for happy, so yes.
I’m sure it is…and no effort on your part to spin this in such a way as to make your argument, whatever it is, work better, right?
-XT
I never quoted her. I was referrring to you and BigT. You clearly were defending people who feel happy after a righteous killing.
So, what you are saying is you don’t have a quote from this woman saying that she is happy OR gleeful killing bad guys, and you are basing this discussion on what is pretty obviously a misread (to be generous) of what others are trying to tell you and you aren’t getting? Gotcha.
-XT
If restating everything I say makes you feel warm and fuzzy, far be it from me to interfere. Enjoy your little conversation with yourself.
It’s almost like you don’t realize that we can all, you know, simply scroll up and SEE what you’ve been saying…and what it’s in response too. This new technology…ain’t it grand??
-XT
Seeing, reading and understanding seem to to be entirely separate concepts to you. Keep practicing though, one day it will all come together for you! 
Funny…I don’t seem to be the only one in this thread who thinks the same thing about you. DeNile…it’s not just a river in Egypt anymore.
(I’m just messing with you FI…but you really do seem defensive about this stuff, and ready to twist things or use the worst possible interpretation for every aspect of this zombie discussion.)
-XT
As I said, I may be an outlier. I have never felt any particular need to conform just because others find my views unsettling.
I don’t think that your average 'doper is exactly brimming over with conformity. Your views aren’t unsettling. It’s like you WANT them to be unsettling, but no one seems particularly unsettled. They are just puzzling, as I said. It’s hard to understand someone who can’t see how a person going through all the stuff from the article might be anything other than miserable…or why you would automatically equate ‘happy’ with ‘glee’, or why ‘happy’ is an inappropriate emotion, even assuming we could agree on what the definition of what is or isn’t ‘happy’ (which obviously we can’t, since I and others have put out various definitions and you just keep repeating that it’s inappropriate and we’ll have to be, er, ‘happy’ with that response).
-XT
And yet you continue to try to change people’s minds! :smack:
Ah, I see the disconnect here. I’m not trying to change your mind…far from it! I’ve given up on changing anyone’s mind, let alone one of my fellow 'dopers. It’s not worth the effort, and I don’t have the mental or rhetorical tools to do it in any case.
-XT
I’m quoting you because you appeared to be responding to me — AFAIK I was the first one to bring up the shooter’s IMO strange attitude and media blitz. I threw in Dr. Drew as an example, so relax, nobody is accusing you of watching daytime TV.
You then went on to make a snide remark about the “anti-gun side” (NOT the anti-gun lobby, as you have revised), and in the context of the posts surrounding yours, I don’t think it was a stretch to take that as being targeted at the same people who were concerned by the shooter’s attitude.
If I misunderstood you, I’m sorry, but maybe you should be a bit more specific in your posts, and say “lobby” when you mean “lobby.”
And speaking of non sequiters, do you really find it noteworthy that the anti-gun lobby did not immediately issue a statement condemning the police? For that matter, have you seen statements from the NRA commenting on the police response? Accounts of the incident note that she was in a rural location. Do you have evidence that the police were just “waddling,” or did they respond in a reasonable time given the circumstances?
**brocks,**I live very close to the location where this occurred. It’s rural Oklahoma. There is no anti-gun lobby here. There are certainly a few people that don’t support guns and gun ownership but they’re far from a lobby.
What I find interesting in the case is that although the young woman shot and killed the intruder, the other assailant is being charged with murder since he was committing a felony at the time of the death. He’s also been released on bond which seems a little strange to me.
The county she lives in has 3 deputies to cover12,000 sq. miles.
I’ll try to find the report I saw that in.