zero4o3 wrote:Dragonfighter wrote:03Lightningrocks wrote:speedsix wrote:...they can't take it too seriously...MANY serial killers began by cruelty to animals and escalated from there...good to see you guiding her well...
True, but most animal killers don't become serial killers.

While I understand one being upset about an animal getting mutilated, how owning a gun would have changed that is way beyond me. <SNIP>
Is there a source for this? There is documented proof that most serial killers started out this way, but I haven't heard the alternative position.
look at it this way, most serial killers may began with animals, but all people who are cruel to animals don't become serial killers,
thats like saying most premeditated murders are committed by people with weapons, so all people with weapons must be planning to murder some one?
its fair to point out that many serial killers start with animals, but not fair to say they have to be a serial killer
That was what I was trying to point out but was getting pounded on for doing it. Maybe I held my lips wrong as I pointed it out.
Regardless, part of that perception may stem from a little brain washing and social conditioning by animal rights activist. If they can associate a serial killer with animal cruelty, they can point at anyone convicted of animal cruelty and label them a serial killer. It achieves more social stigma than animal abuse alone.
The government has been playing this game for years with everything from alcohol to marijuana. There was a time when they had everyone convinced marijuana would make a black man rape a white woman.
Most of us would love a few minutes alone with someone caught mutilating an animal, but that does not mean we think the person is going to start killing folks.