Santa Barbara shooting

[poppy]

Just saying it is a bit weird. Read into it what you want.

 

Hogwash.

[Pawz4me]

This came across my FB feed, attributed to a Juniper Russo. It seems apropos to this discussion:

 

I've only seen or read snippets of the news over the weekend, but that's not the impression I've gotten at all.  Almost every report I've heard or read has strongly referenced his attitude about women and sex.  The only place I've heard anything at all about him being on the spectrum is on this board.  FWIW, my news has come mostly from online sources and CNN televised news.

[Jasperstone]

 

I don't think any of our politicians are savvy enough to embark on conspiracies....look at the past Labour govt. They self-destructed just trying to stab each other in the back LOL.

 

I wouldn't credit them with enough brains to maintain a cover up like that.

True!!! :-D

[flyingiguana]

I'm guessing that your "normal folks" don't live in the inner cities?  Death by stray bullet is VERY real and VERY tragic for the "normal folks" who live in our major inner cities.  Or do they not count?

There are places/situations where gun control would likely save a lot of lives. This is one of them. Domestic violence is another. And since those are the situations where the vast majority of people are killed by guns, gun control would have a huge effect on mortality.

 

However, when it comes to these crazy mass murderers, I'm not really seeing that it would have much effect. Either these guys will still get the guns they want legally (we're never going to ban guns entirely), or they'll figure out some other way to do in a lot of people. So the pro-gun lobby will continue to point to these situations and say gun control will help nothing. Ever. They use it as a red herring. They use these mass murders and the fact that the mass murderer would have been just as effective with some other weapon to obscure the fact that gun control would help a significant number of people in the US -- it just might not reduce mass murders. Because, if you can't get a gun, homemade bombs and such things are very effective weapons. The gun lobby keeps saying such things -- probably because they're right. As a result, mass gun murders such as these may be making gun control LESS likely. Because people say, oh, well, we all know it won't stop mad men from mass murdering people, so why do it at all?

 

It's obscuring the fact that gun control would be useful for other reasons that are forgotten following mass murders. Mass murders that likely wouldn't have been stopped by gun control.

 

And yes, at the root of the problem is the mental illness that drives a VERY FEW to commit these crimes. But the identification of these few is, at this point, kind of impossible. Although there are always warning signs that people point to after the fact, the truth is, those "warning signs" show up in a lot of people who never commit these crimes. Also, due to our Constitution, it's often impossible to lock up a person BEFORE they commit a crime.

 

Treatment of the mental illness behind these rampages appears to not do any good, but that's not because no one's trying. The problem is that we don't have good treatments for extreme cases. Or maybe that we do, but that it doesn't work 100% of the time. A few people slip through.

 

I find the response of people from other countries to be rather interesting. I think they tend to forget that the US has a pretty large population. Crazy things are more likely to happen here, even if they're happening at the same per capita rate. They may not be more likely to occur to an individual in the US than they are in any other country. I don't know the actual statistics -- if someone does, I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

A disclaimer: From MY perspective, I would guess they are more likely in the US, if only because my immed personal experience seems to indicate that -- I live in a city that did have a mass shooting a couple years ago. However, personal experience tends to skew one's perception. I'm not sure what the actual numbers are. (As a statistician, I don't like to depend on personal experience to draw conclusions on these sorts of things)

[Heather in Neverland]

"Let's not allow all of the talk about sexism, gun control and mental illness to distract from one simple fact: this man chose to do what he did. Selfishness lies at the root of his crime, just as it lies at the root of all evil...

 

He was not delusional. He understood what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, which is why he made efforts to conceal his plans. This was a coldly calculated mission to slaughter innocent people and gain worldwide fame. Nothing about its planning or execution leads me to believe that he should be let off the hook by these assumptions that he was somehow too “ill†to comprehend his own actions.

 

It makes us feel better to reject the existence of evil and consider all maliciousness and brutality to be mere symptoms of mental diseases. This way, tragic events like these become easier to manage, easier to understand, and easier to cure. But the truth is more difficult. The truth is that, sometimes, perfectly sane and rational people do terribly violent and sickening things...

 

So I don’t think this guy was insane in the sense of being the victim of some unfortunate psychological phenomenon. I think he was a rational human being committing evil acts because he chose to commit evil acts...

 

But that does not make The Coward a “product†of anything. Not of society, not of misogyny, not of mental illness, nor video games, nor Hollywood. He is (was) a human being, and humans are dynamic, powerful creatures with free will and the ability to choose right over wrong. We are not products. We are not puppets. We’ve done what we’ve done because that is the path we have chosen."

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/25/t/#7JJwDoyr5yMRevzi.99

[flyingiguana]

As far as personal experience goes, I should also point out that the Isla Vista shooter went to my high school.

 

My sister went to UCSB, so I spent a lot of time in Isla Vista.

 

I no longer live in the state. Even so, my next door neighbor's son lives on the block where some of the shootings took place. His roommates saw one of the people get shot.

 

Several other kids I know go to SBCC.

 

My niece's church in Boston was the one right next to the Boston Marathon bombing (which was a bombing btw, not a gun event). And she lived right in the neighborhood where the massive manhunt and shoot out took place afterwards.

 

So based on my personal experience alone, these things look very common to me. (Taken together with the fact that we had a mass shooting in my current city, it looks grim)

 

On the other hand, I'm actually a lot more concerned about day to day gun use in my area. In the past year, more people have died in my immediate area in single shootings than died in either mass shooting that are in my "personal space" (as it were). These deaths, however, didn't make the national/international news. Statistics tend not to.

 

So although I don't see that gun control is going to do much to reduce mass murders in the US, I am VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL as a means of reducing the death rate from these garden variety murders and accidents.

 

This is why I wish we'd stop worrying about gun control only when there's a mass shooting like this, and start lobbying more for it in the "quiet" times when it's only a "few" people a day getting killed by guns.

 

I've written to my congressman about this -- I encourage other US citizens/residents to do the same.

 

 

 

 

Do I worry about my kids or me getting hit by random gun fire? Yes.

 

Do I worry about us being victims of mass murder? Not nearly as much.

[flyingiguana]

Pseudoscientific foolishness. 

 

No more helpful than pointing out a statistical correlation between divorce in the state of Maine and consumption of margarine.

 

Except that some correlations are the product of causation.

 

It's become a rallying cry that "correlation does not prove causation". So much so, that I think now when people are told there's a correlation, they immediately think that must mean there CANNOT be cause at the root of it.

 

Correlation, though, is a very strong tool to find associations that MAY be causative. Things that warrant a further look.

 

This was in reference to this page:

http://www.psychintegrity.org/isepp_statement_on_the_connection_between_psychotropic_drugs_and_mass_murder.php

 

 

The correlation between leaded gasoline use and crime rates is also interesting in this context:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

[Kathryn]

This person seems like he was not developmentally an adult ever in his life...perhaps something like NY's PINS* program should be the next step for teens and young adults who are under the care of a mental health professional and showing the anger issues and violent thoughts this lad is showing. A parent could refer, as they are close enough to sense something is way off.

 

*PINS - persons in need of supervision

He had been under the care of psychiatrists and psychologists for over a decade. He also had several life skills counselors as a teen and young adult. He was enrolled in a social skills program where people around his own age took him out and tried to help him navigate socially (I say "people" because he did have a female one at one point but he asked for her to be replaced because it felt like prostitution to him to be paying a woman to hang out with him.).

[albeto.]

Except that some correlations are the product of causation.

 

It's become a rallying cry that "correlation does not prove causation". So much so, that I think now when people are told there's a correlation, they immediately think that must mean there CANNOT be cause at the root of it.

 

Correlation, though, is a very strong tool to find associations that MAY be causative. Things that warrant a further look.

 

This was in reference to this page:

http://www.psychintegrity.org/isepp_statement_on_the_connection_between_psychotropic_drugs_and_mass_murder.php

 

 

The correlation between leaded gasoline use and crime rates is also interesting in this context:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

 

Things that warrant a further look do best when research is done by a third-party independent organization, not the very organization trying to prove its own credibility. That's the beauty of the scientific method - people who don't have a personal interest in a scientific claim also contribute to the pool of knowledge. 

[albeto.]

"Let's not allow all of the talk about sexism, gun control and mental illness to distract from one simple fact: this man chose to do what he did. Selfishness lies at the root of his crime, just as it lies at the root of all evil...

 

He was not delusional. He understood what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, which is why he made efforts to conceal his plans. This was a coldly calculated mission to slaughter innocent people and gain worldwide fame. Nothing about its planning or execution leads me to believe that he should be let off the hook by these assumptions that he was somehow too “ill†to comprehend his own actions.

 

It makes us feel better to reject the existence of evil and consider all maliciousness and brutality to be mere symptoms of mental diseases. This way, tragic events like these become easier to manage, easier to understand, and easier to cure. But the truth is more difficult. The truth is that, sometimes, perfectly sane and rational people do terribly violent and sickening things...

 

So I don’t think this guy was insane in the sense of being the victim of some unfortunate psychological phenomenon. I think he was a rational human being committing evil acts because he chose to commit evil acts...

 

But that does not make The Coward a “product†of anything. Not of society, not of misogyny, not of mental illness, nor video games, nor Hollywood. He is (was) a human being, and humans are dynamic, powerful creatures with free will and the ability to choose right over wrong. We are not products. We are not puppets. We’ve done what we’ve done because that is the path we have chosen."

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/25/t/#7JJwDoyr5yMRevzi.99

 

Matt Walsh is the new Rush Limbaugh, and this is exactly what I meant about superstition and justice system based on vengeance. The idea that a radio guy can suggest a young man who fancied himself "magnificent," "of superior intelligence," and "a god," would be operating with the same neurological and mental tools you and I use is absurd. It's dismissive, offensive, and most importantly dangerous. It holds us back as a society, and that puts more people at risk. We can work to identify and avoid these risks, and it would go a lot faster if people with large audiences didn't spew such archaic, foolish, egoistic opinions-as-fact. The guy was messed up. He was suffering himself. Our attention should be focused on identifying the variables that create this Perfect Storm of Mental Ill-health / Violence-Fetish Society.

[Kathryn]

"Let's not allow all of the talk about sexism, gun control and mental illness to distract from one simple fact: this man chose to do what he did. Selfishness lies at the root of his crime, just as it lies at the root of all evil...

 

He was not delusional. He understood what he was doing. He knew it was wrong, which is why he made efforts to conceal his plans. This was a coldly calculated mission to slaughter innocent people and gain worldwide fame. Nothing about its planning or execution leads me to believe that he should be let off the hook by these assumptions that he was somehow too “ill†to comprehend his own actions.

 

It makes us feel better to reject the existence of evil and consider all maliciousness and brutality to be mere symptoms of mental diseases. This way, tragic events like these become easier to manage, easier to understand, and easier to cure. But the truth is more difficult. The truth is that, sometimes, perfectly sane and rational people do terribly violent and sickening things...

 

So I don’t think this guy was insane in the sense of being the victim of some unfortunate psychological phenomenon. I think he was a rational human being committing evil acts because he chose to commit evil acts...

 

But that does not make The Coward a “product†of anything. Not of society, not of misogyny, not of mental illness, nor video games, nor Hollywood. He is (was) a human being, and humans are dynamic, powerful creatures with free will and the ability to choose right over wrong. We are not products. We are not puppets. We’ve done what we’ve done because that is the path we have chosen."

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/25/t/#7JJwDoyr5yMRevzi.99

I go back and forth here. He planned this for years, keeping it secret. He knew what he did was wrong. Over the period of time he lived there, he wrote about several instances when he became so enraged at seeing blond girls with their boyfriends or just blond girls who he knew wouldn't date him, that he threw his coffee on them, or in one instance bought a water gun and filled it with orange juice and sprayed them. He knew enough to run as fast as he could afterwards and be afraid that police had been called.

 

But, he also shared his feelings and thoughts of torturing and killing with several friends. He expected that because they were also outcasts or virgins themselves, they felt the same way. He was confused as to how they didn't. He did not understand why they didn't want to associate with him after his telling them these things.

 

I think he was "rational" to the extent that he knew what he was doing was illegal and he'd go to prison if caught (he planned to take a bunch of pills, drink, and then shoot himself in the head at the end of his rampage so as not to get arrested). But, from reading what he wrote, no, I don't think he was "rational" in terms of being able to follow a logical thought process. And I don't think people say that to feel better about themselves or safer. It honestly feels more dangerous to me.

[Ausmumof3]

But would that really prevent tragedies if people are bent on carrying them out?

 

South Korea is one of the toughest countries I know about gun control ...even the police don't carry them. So instead a mentally ill person started a fire on a train and killed a ton of people that way instead.

 

The average person in Australia doesn't have access to guns but the Port Arthur massacre still happened.

 

Unfortunately....where there's a will there's a way.

 

Gun control might lesson spur of the moment killings but for those set on planning huge massacres it won't do much to stop them.

Gun control was introduced after the massacre. You would be surprised at how easy it is to obtain a gun legally even now but there are background checks and high capacity is much more restricted.

[Kathryn]

His original plan was to kill his roommates because they would be in the way of his using his apartment as a torture chamber. He would then lure people into his apartment and torture them in unimaginable ways before finally beheading them. He would put their heads in a bag to use later. That phase was to be done with knives. Then, he'd drive to his father's house to shoot his brother and his step-mother. He hoped his father would be gone because he didn't know that he'd be able to kill him, but he'd have to if he was there. Then, he'd take his father's SUV because he could run over people more effectively in it. Then, he'd go to the sorority house he'd chosen, shoot them all, and then set the house on fire. After that, he'd drive around mowing people down who congregate in the streets on weekend evenings. Finally, he'd dump out the heads he'd collected so everyone would know how powerful he was before killing himself when the police arrived.

 

I'm not sure how he thought he'd get that far before being stopped or police being notified. Again, illogical. He had thought of several other days to carry this out when there would be more people around, but chose not to because police would be around as well. But, he seemed to think that they wouldn't be alerted pretty early in this scenario he concocted.

[Word Nerd]

I think the fact that we can read his manifesto and know details about his twisted death fantasies is itself part of the problem. If there wasn't such a media frenzy ensuring that their names will live on in infamy, would so many young men go on mass killing sprees?

[SadieMarie]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/27/white_guy_killer_syndrome_elliot_rodgers_deadly_privileged_rage/

 

If it isn't about guns maybe it is about the combination of white, male privilege and guns?  This isn't the first opinion I have read about how mass shooters are typically young, white, middle or upper class men.  I know there are exceptions, really, so no need to give me a list.  But as the author points out, would a black guy or even a white guy covered in tattoos and piercings been able to so easily convince the police that they were safe?  If it had not been this nice looking, soft spoken, white kid would they have been convinced so easily?

[Kathryn]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/27/white_guy_killer_syndrome_elliot_rodgers_deadly_privileged_rage/

 

If it isn't about guns maybe it is about the combination of white, male privilege and guns? This isn't the first opinion I have read about how mass shooters are typically young, white, middle or upper class men. I know there are exceptions, really, so no need to give me a list. But as the author points out, would a black guy or even a white guy covered in tattoos and piercings been able to so easily convince the police that they were safe? If it had not been this nice looking, soft spoken, white kid would they have been convinced so easily?

He was half Chinese, which he felt was part of the problem as he wanted to be tall and blond and muscular.

[Laurie]

  This person seems like he was not developmentally an adult ever in his life...perhaps something like NY's PINS* program should be the next step for teens and young adults who are under the care of a mental health professional and showing the anger issues and violent thoughts this lad is showing. A parent could refer, as they are close enough to sense something is way off.

 

*PINS - persons in need of supervision

 

Yes.

 

I just don't understand why he was living on his own.  I haven't heard anything about an employer, so I'm assuming he didn't have a job.  Somewhere I read that he wasn't currently a student either.  That makes sense since he seemed to have plenty of time to drive around in his BMW, go target shooting, make videos and write about his plans, play video games, etc.  Someone must have been paying his way.  If he didn't have someone to pay his rent and other expenses, would he be living out on the street?   From reading some of what he has written, I doubt it because he was very concerned about his appearance and felt entitled to the best of everything.  My guess is that he'd be living with one of his parents.   People can say that a parent has no control over an adult child...but that 's really not true if you're paying their way.  

 

 

 

 

[SadieMarie]

He was half Chinese, which he felt was part of the problem as he wanted to be tall and blond and muscular.

 

Well, having watched the video I would say he looks Caucasian.  But I am thinking as far as profiling, mixed Asian Caucasian is close enough to white to not negate the point of the article.

[Kathryn]

Yes.

 

I just don't understand why he was living on his own. I haven't heard anything about an employer, so I'm assuming he didn't have a job. Somewhere I read that he wasn't currently a student either. That makes sense since he seemed to have plenty of time to drive around in his BMW, go target shooting, make videos and write about his plans, play video games, etc. Someone must have been paying his way. If he didn't have someone to pay his rent and other expenses, would he be living out on the street? From reading some of what he has written, I doubt it because he was very concerned about his appearance and felt entitled to the best of everything. My guess is that he'd be living with one of his parents. People can say that a parent has no control over an adult child...but that 's really not true if you're paying their way.

He was not working. He'd had two "jobs." He helped his dad's friend build a staircase once. His life skills coach got him a job that he quit on the first day when he found out it was custodial because that was beneath him. He constantly signed up for classes and then dropped them when there was a pretty girl that he couldn't have in them. His parents didn't know that he was dropping classes in the past year. His mother paid his rent and father paid tuition. They gave him living allowances and they and his grandmothers sent him money and gift cards frequently. His parents both seemed to think that he would do better away from them and that living in a college atmosphere was going to force him to make friends and be social.

[SadieMarie]

There are places/situations where gun control would likely save a lot of lives. This is one of them. Domestic violence is another. And since those are the situations where the vast majority of people are killed by guns, gun control would have a huge effect on mortality.

 

However, when it comes to these crazy mass murderers, I'm not really seeing that it would have much effect. Either these guys will still get the guns they want legally (we're never going to ban guns entirely), or they'll figure out some other way to do in a lot of people. So the pro-gun lobby will continue to point to these situations and say gun control will help nothing. Ever. They use it as a red herring. They use these mass murders and the fact that the mass murderer would have been just as effective with some other weapon to obscure the fact that gun control would help a significant number of people in the US -- it just might not reduce mass murders. Because, if you can't get a gun, homemade bombs and such things are very effective weapons. The gun lobby keeps saying such things -- probably because they're right. As a result, mass gun murders such as these may be making gun control LESS likely. Because people say, oh, well, we all know it won't stop mad men from mass murdering people, so why do it at all?

 

It's obscuring the fact that gun control would be useful for other reasons that are forgotten following mass murders. Mass murders that likely wouldn't have been stopped by gun control.

 

And yes, at the root of the problem is the mental illness that drives a VERY FEW to commit these crimes. But the identification of these few is, at this point, kind of impossible. Although there are always warning signs that people point to after the fact, the truth is, those "warning signs" show up in a lot of people who never commit these crimes. Also, due to our Constitution, it's often impossible to lock up a person BEFORE they commit a crime.

 

Treatment of the mental illness behind these rampages appears to not do any good, but that's not because no one's trying. The problem is that we don't have good treatments for extreme cases. Or maybe that we do, but that it doesn't work 100% of the time. A few people slip through.

 

I find the response of people from other countries to be rather interesting. I think they tend to forget that the US has a pretty large population. Crazy things are more likely to happen here, even if they're happening at the same per capita rate. They may not be more likely to occur to an individual in the US than they are in any other country. I don't know the actual statistics -- if someone does, I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

A disclaimer: From MY perspective, I would guess they are more likely in the US, if only because my immed personal experience seems to indicate that -- I live in a city that did have a mass shooting a couple years ago. However, personal experience tends to skew one's perception. I'm not sure what the actual numbers are. (As a statistician, I don't like to depend on personal experience to draw conclusions on these sorts of things)

I posted this earlier but it is worth repeating http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/Gun%20Fact%20Sheet_FINAL%2003%2003%2013.pdf

 

And now I have to walk away because I am getting into head explosion territory and we still have to do math today.

[flyingiguana]

Yes.

 

I just don't understand why he was living on his own.  I haven't heard anything about an employer, so I'm assuming he didn't have a job.  Somewhere I read that he wasn't currently a student either.  That makes sense since he seemed to have plenty of time to drive around in his BMW, go target shooting, make videos and write about his plans, play video games, etc.  Someone must have been paying his way.  If he didn't have someone to pay his rent and other expenses, would he be living out on the street?   From reading some of what he has written, I doubt it because he was very concerned about his appearance and felt entitled to the best of everything.  My guess is that he'd be living with one of his parents.   People can say that a parent has no control over an adult child...but that 's really not true if you're paying their way.  

 

Let's say he'd been living with his mom because she refused to pay rent for a separate apartment.  How would this have stopped him from just killing her first and then going on his rampage?

 

And where have we heard this scenario before?

 

 

[WagsWife]

The countries that came under the control of Nazi Germany and those which were controlled by the USSR are the same countries which many of our ancestors came from. During most of their history, great things happened in those countries. It is definitely scary to think how drastically things can change when the wrong people have the wrong powers.

Exactly. I just watched a movie about the Final Solution. A group of highly intelligent, educated, dignified men met to discuss the "Jewish problem." They debated the pros and cons of just sterilization versus "evacuation" (code for extermination.) When it was decided that "evacuation" would be the best way to rid the planet from this "problem"...they discussed methods. Mass shooting--who would do it? If soldiers did it, it would cause a morale issue. So it was finally decided that gas chambers made to look like showers would be the best solution. They joked how the gas would cause the bodies to come out pink.

 

This did not happen centuries ago in a Third World country...it happened less than a hundred years ago--in our parents/grandparents lifetime. It is foolish to think that it could/would not happen again.

[Reefgazer]

This country has had liberal gun laws forever, but this mass-shooting business is a relatively new phenomenon.  This isn't about the guns; it's about the people.  Our society has become very self-centered, entitled, and wants satisfaction on demand, and I think that is what has driven these mass shootings.  This kid felt *entitled* to women and friends.  Those who shoot have an agenda because they are not getting what they feel *entitled* to.  It took generations to get here, and it will take generations to return to civility and a non-entitled environment, if we even can get there.  In the meantime, it is the price we pay for life in what is a historically-unique free society.  And before anyone jumps on my ass for saying "you would feel differently if it was your child", it *is* potentially my child.  But risking harm (whether by a crazy gunman or a crazy terrorist) is still the price we pay for living relatively unencumbered by the government.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

This country has had liberal gun laws forever, but this mass-shooting business is a relatively new phenomenon.  This isn't about the guns; it's about the people.  Our society has become very self-centered, entitled, and wants satisfaction on demand, and I think that is what has driven these mass shootings.  This kid felt *entitled* to women and friends.  Those who shoot have an agenda because they are not getting what they feel *entitled* to.  It took generations to get here, and it will take generations to return to civility and a non-entitled environment, if we even can get there.  In the meantime, it is the price we pay for life in what is a historically-unique free society.  And before anyone jumps on my ass for saying "you would feel differently if it was your child", it *is* potentially my child.  But risking harm (whether by a crazy gunman or a crazy terrorist) is still the price we pay for living relatively unencumbered by the government.

 

Yes and no. Once upon a time guns were simply a tool. You had a rifle/shotgun whatever if you were on a farm because it was necessary.  Pistols were for cops, military, and crooks. Your average joe didn't walk around with a handgun, and he didn't need to.

 

We have fetished guns in this country. Its disturbing.

 

I think I've said before. I don't advocate all out banning of guns, but I do want better regulation and monitoring.

 

Nor do I think gun access is the primary issue at stake here.

 

I think the use of entitled isn't helpful due to the frequent use of entitlement in politlcal propganda these days.

 

In his eyes his masculinity was tied to female conquest, this is a societal issue. We still high five the guy who gets laid, and call the girl a slut. 

 

Mental health is poorly treated, stigmatized and often ignored.

 

We assume that only crazy people do these kind of things.  Well, there are a whole heck of alot of crazy people around who aren't going on killing sprees. So there is something more going on.

 

The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators.

[Joanne]

I can not agree with you - if a kid who is 22 years old posted a youtube video about massacaring girls in April 2014 (this happened in this case) and then he was seeing 2 therapists for these issues, I as a parent would ask the therapists to give me the required paperwork to decalre my child incapable of decision making.

 

 

It does not work that way.

 

[flyingiguana]

  This person seems like he was not developmentally an adult ever in his life...perhaps something like NY's PINS* program should be the next step for teens and young adults who are under the care of a mental health professional and showing the anger issues and violent thoughts this lad is showing. A parent could refer, as they are close enough to sense something is way off.

 

*PINS - persons in need of supervision

 

California apparently already has something along these lines:

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/05/26/california-killers-family-tried-to-intervene?from=hp

 

"Doris A. Fuller, executive director of the Virginia-based Treatment Advocacy Center, said California law has provisions that permit emergency psychiatric evaluations of individuals who pose a serious threat, but that was never triggered."

 

Why wasn't it triggered?  My guess is because he tipped over the edge very fast.  No one had time.  Before that, it wasn't severe enough for anyone to think this could happen.

 

Thing is, these solutions are all well and good, but they aren't going to work 100% of the time.

 

From personal family experience, I can tell you that a decline into a dangerous mental state can happen very, very quickly -- seemingly within hours.  It's possible it took place over months inside the person's head, but to family and therapists and law enforcement the signs may only show up hours before bad things start to happen.  Before that, it may only look like the person is suffering and is possibly a danger only to themselves.

 

Sometimes (in the case I personally experienced) there may be just enough shreds of stability left that the person removes themselves from the situation before they hurt anyone else.  This removal may be through suicide.  Our family was "lucky" that that was the turn things took.  Looking back on it, I can see our situation having gone exactly the way the Isla Vista murders went.  As it turned out, though, the person in question figured out what direction things were heading and decided he didn't want to be that person.  So his last act was to keep himself from hurting anyone else.

 

He wasn't, as far as we know, delusional.  Nor was he evil.  Sometimes, rarely, mental illness goes this direction.

[Joanne]

There is so much untreated mental illness in this country.  Until we change laws and keep tighter tabs on the mentally ill, the problem is only going to get bigger.  We can't ban things from the mentally healthy population in order to create an illusion of safety.  Someone who is determined to kill others due to mental illness will find a way.

 

I would change this from "keep tabs" to "ensure help and support."

[Word Nerd]

 Once upon a time guns were simply a tool. 

 

They still are for many. 

[happyWImom]

To this list I would add

 

-- We need to change our collective view about justice from vengeance-oriented system to a preventative system

-- We need to change our media coverage from profitable sensationalism to objective reports of events

-- We need to change our collective opinion about human behavior, what inspires it and why some people don't have the same control as others

-- We need to stop glorifying violence (which, I think, is directly correlated with a vengeance-oriented justice system)

-- We need to educate children to know the difference between fact and opinion, so when information is presented, people know how to draw logical conclusions and not contribute to superstitious thinking or fear-mongering

This.  All of this IMO is why we are seeing more of these horrible situations today.

[Reefgazer]

The bolded troubles me.  Not because I am against regulation, per se, but because of what it would look like in practice.  I think we can all agree that these mass shooters are mentally ill.  So more investigation into someone's mental health history/insurance claims/related matters would prevent people from getting the help they needed for fear it would jeopardize a permit process for other things (including future gun ownership), and possibly even a job application if the information got out that they were treated for a mental illness.  It would give me pause to get treated for mental illness for this reason:  How would it look in the future if I wanted a gun and something like depression prevented me from getting a gun that I wanted?  I'd skip the treatment.  I do think through my actions and ponder what future effect they will have before I do something.  I have turned down medical treatment in the past for a physical ailment for fear it would jeopardize a recreational activity I wanted to do after treatment; I didn't want it anywhere on my record.  As far as your run-of-the-mill criminal who shoots up a crack house because someone cheated them of money, the guns they use are stolen; more regulation isn't going to affect them at all.

 

I flat out disagree that weapons are no longer a tool; they're just a tool in the wrong hands and used for the wrong reason by many more these days.  *Entitled* people use them to force what they cannot access by other means; it doesn't matter if that's a politically incorrect term or not, it's the truth.

Yes and no. Once upon a time guns were simply a tool. You had a rifle/shotgun whatever if you were on a farm because it was necessary.  Pistols were for cops, military, and crooks. Your average joe didn't walk around with a handgun, and he didn't need to.

 

We have fetished guns in this country. Its disturbing.

 

I think I've said before. I don't advocate all out banning of guns, but I do want better regulation and monitoring.

 

Nor do I think gun access is the primary issue at stake here.

 

I think the use of entitled isn't helpful due to the frequent use of entitlement in politlcal propganda these days.

 

In his eyes his masculinity was tied to female conquest, this is a societal issue. We still high five the guy who gets laid, and call the girl a slut. 

 

Mental health is poorly treated, stigmatized and often ignored.

 

We assume that only crazy people do these kind of things.  Well, there are a whole heck of alot of crazy people around who aren't going on killing sprees. So there is something more going on.

 

The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators.

 

[SKL]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/27/white_guy_killer_syndrome_elliot_rodgers_deadly_privileged_rage/

 

If it isn't about guns maybe it is about the combination of white, male privilege and guns?  This isn't the first opinion I have read about how mass shooters are typically young, white, middle or upper class men.  I know there are exceptions, really, so no need to give me a list.  But as the author points out, would a black guy or even a white guy covered in tattoos and piercings been able to so easily convince the police that they were safe?  If it had not been this nice looking, soft spoken, white kid would they have been convinced so easily?

 

White? - quite a few here and in other countries have been Asian.  (I can also recall at least one pair of black mass shooters.)  In the USA you'd expect the majority to be white because most Americans are white.

 

Privileged? - maybe - perhaps the money factor is how these people were able to buy such destructive weapons (which, again, I feel should not be allowed for the everyday citizen).  MIght be some other relevant correlations there too - but I don't think there's causation i.e. wealth => devaluing human life.  And on the other hand, there are plenty of poor people in certain urban areas who can boast more murders, just not all at once.

 

Male?  - this does seem to be a trend.  However, I'm not sure what to do with that information.  Probably nothing.

[SKL]

Yes and no. Once upon a time guns were simply a tool. You had a rifle/shotgun whatever if you were on a farm because it was necessary.  Pistols were for cops, military, and crooks. Your average joe didn't walk around with a handgun, and he didn't need to.

 

We have fetished guns in this country. Its disturbing.

 

We have not fetished guns, at least not until some people started to get aggressive about trying to prevent us from owning them.

 

I think if people would back off the "ban guns" mantra, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would go back to being very blah.  Which they mostly are anyway.

[poppy]

This country has had liberal gun laws forever, but this mass-shooting business is a relatively new phenomenon.  This isn't about the guns; it's about the people

 

Guns have changed a lot since my dad was learning to shoot. 

And back then, guns weren't a multi billion dollar industry.

[poppy]

 

 

We have not fetished guns, at least not until some people started to get aggressive about trying to prevent us from owning them.

 

Are you old enough to remember the Dirty Harry movies?

[flyingiguana]

We have not fetished guns, at least not until some people started to get aggressive about trying to prevent us from owning them.

 

I think if people would back off the "ban guns" mantra, guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would go back to being very blah.  Which they mostly are anyway.

 

I would guess that if further gun controls were passed in the US, most people wouldn't even notice much change, except perhaps the ability to buy at will immediately.

 

However, the monied interests of the gun lobby don't want people to realize that.  They know that unregulated gun sales only mean lots more guns are sold so they make a lot more money.  Regulated gun sales would likely mean most law abiding citizens would have no problem getting the guns they wanted, but it would cut way down on certain types of sales -- which would mean less money in the pockets of gun manufacturers.

 

It's all about money.  Gun manufacturers don't particularly care who gets killed, just so long as they can sell more guns and make more money.

 

And what I find particularly fascinating is how they have used the fears of gun owners to keep

any sort of gun control from getting passed.   

 

Every time someone comes on here and squawks about how their guns are going to get taken away by the government, I just see someone else who's been duped by the gun lobby.  It's not govt they should be in fear of controlling them -- it's the industry that is using them to keep guns flowing freely.  Because that industry is already controlling them.  They just don't realize it.

 

There is no logic in the knee jerk reaction that guns must be sold with as little control as possible.  There's no way people's little guns are going to be any deterrent to govt control.  Because you can't buy tanks or anti aircraft missiles or bombers.  If you don't have those, you are no match for anything the govt decides to do.

 

I know this will get just a little negative reaction.  However, all I'm trying to do is inject a little logic into the situation.

[flyingiguana]

White? - quite a few here and in other countries have been Asian.  (I can also recall at least one pair of black mass shooters.)  In the USA you'd expect the majority to be white because most Americans are white.

 

Privileged? - maybe - perhaps the money factor is how these people were able to buy such destructive weapons (which, again, I feel should not be allowed for the everyday citizen).  MIght be some other relevant correlations there too - but I don't think there's causation i.e. wealth => devaluing human life.  And on the other hand, there are plenty of poor people in certain urban areas who can boast more murders, just not all at once.

 

Male?  - this does seem to be a trend.  However, I'm not sure what to do with that information.  Probably nothing.

 

And at least one was black:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Muhammad

 

I'm guessing race is no predictor.

 

Wealth?  I dunno -- I wonder if this same event in a "bad" part of town would have been reported differently and therefore not ended up in the mass murder category.  Not that I'm saying it has happened, I'm just wondering.  I just have the sneaking suspicion that I've heard of cases where some inner city guy got rid of his family and then went and shot a couple other people and it was not really covered extensively.  It might have got lost in gang or drug violence statistics.  The reality is that most reporters are college educated, so if something of this nature happens in a college town, they're much more likely to make a big deal of it.

 

Not that I'm saying they shouldn't have made a big deal of it, but there are other murders that maybe should get more coverage.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Meh. Most normal folks in the US don't worry about any of that either.

 

 

I assure you that I most certainly do worry about it. 

 

I doubt most people worry about a truck bomb but I know all too well how on a beautiful day in April one's view of the world can change forever. 

 

I am from Oklahoma City.

[Joanne]

Yes.

 

I just don't understand why he was living on his own.  I haven't heard anything about an employer, so I'm assuming he didn't have a job.  Somewhere I read that he wasn't currently a student either.  That makes sense since he seemed to have plenty of time to drive around in his BMW, go target shooting, make videos and write about his plans, play video games, etc.  Someone must have been paying his way.  If he didn't have someone to pay his rent and other expenses, would he be living out on the street?   From reading some of what he has written, I doubt it because he was very concerned about his appearance and felt entitled to the best of everything.  My guess is that he'd be living with one of his parents.   People can say that a parent has no control over an adult child...but that 's really not true if you're paying their way.  

 

Do you have children at, or near, adult age?

[Laura Corin]

Here's something I don't understand - I'm not being snarky, I just can't put the two pieces together.  I don't hear  protests at the idea of driving licences, nor at the requirement that they be taken away if a person becomes unfit to drive due to health reasons.

 

Why is a driving licence, and the restriction of freedom it represents, an okay thing, but a similar set of tests for gun ownership not?

 

If a country can accept some limits on freedom for the common good, why not others?

 

L

[SKL]

I would just like to clarify that we most certainly do have gun laws - licenses, restrictions, registrations, background checks, waiting periods, etc., especially for handguns.  Most people are OK with this.

 

There are always going to be some people on the fringes of every issue.  And the fringe people are always going to be the ones making the most noise.  People outside of the US may get the impression that there are no rules at all here.  Not even close to the truth.

[Joanne]

Here's something I don't understand - I'm not being snarky, I just can't put the two pieces together.  I don't hear  protests at the idea of driving licences, nor at the requirement that they be taken away if a person becomes unfit to drive due to health reasons.

 

Why is a driving licence, and the restriction of freedom it represents, an okay thing, but a similar set of tests for gun ownership not?

 

If a country can accept some limits on freedom for the common good, why not others?

 

L

 

I have to show my driving license to buy some allergy meds. Other meds are restricted in various ways. There are restrictions on recreational substances.

 

My youngest (15) can't buy a rated "M" X Box game.

 

The visceral reaction to the thought of stricter gun laws isn't logical.

[poppy]

We do have the Brady Bill from 1993.  That passed after a long, hard, intense seven year fight against the NRA. Thanks to the gun lobby, the restrictions have been considerably loosened since then.

[brehon]

Well, we do have regulations that limit gun ownership. Poll after poll after poll clearly shows a solid majority of Americans support firearm regulations, even beyond what is currently in place. Unfortunately, those same Americans simply don't have the financial clout to overcome the NRA.

 

Plus, our Constitution clearly limits the governments' (federal and state) ability to drastically limit or outright ban citizens' right to own firearms.

 

In most states it can be incredibly difficult to have someone's driving license revoked.

[SKL]

We do have the Brady Bill from 1993.  That passed after a long, hard, intense seven year fight against the NRA. Thanks to the gun lobby, the restrictions have been considerably loosened since then.

 

Many states and cities also have much stricter laws.

[Joker]

Well, we do have regulations that limit gun ownership. Poll after poll after poll clearly shows a solid majority of Americans support firearm regulations, even beyond what is currently in place. Unfortunately, those same Americans simply don't have the financial clout to overcome the NRA.

 

Plus, our Constitution clearly limits the governments' (federal and state) ability to drastically limit or outright ban citizens' right to own firearms.

 

In most states it can be incredibly difficult to have someone's driving license revoked.

 

The bolded is what I've always assumed to be true. A teen's reckless driving killed two members of my family but his license was in no way revoked or restricted. I also seem to always read about drunk drivers and how many violations they have until anything is done.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The reason for the massacre is screwed up parenting - if my child had mental illness and was seeing a couple of therapists and threatened to kill many people (for several weeks before the actual killing), I would go to him and bring him home and take care of him until he was well. I will not call the police to check on his welfare (most parents I know would do the same - bring the kid home - without a second thought). People who have better things to do when their kids are so mentally ill and helpless should not be procreating (sorry, I have family that are in the campus at UCSB right now and I was really scared for a while when this happened). The stabbed roommates are local to me and the news has been talking about them all day long :(

 

PS: All the killer's neighbors are saying that he did not like to socialize even when they tried to befriend him.

 

He also threatened to kill his 6 year old brother. I would not let someone like that live with me even if they were my kid. I am still responsible for the safety of my other kid.

 

Is there any evidence that he was known to be disturbed when his siblings were born? I think it is unfair to blame this on parents when they were trying to get their child assistance. He was seeing therapists, multiple therapists according to some articles.

[flyingiguana]

The state of California took away my mother's license without much fuss as soon as her doctor informed the DMV (Dept of Motor Vehicles) that she should no longer driving.  If that's so easy, why is it so hard to take away licenses from people who drive drunk?

 

However -- when I say no fuss, I don't mean that, really.  My mother fussed quite a bit.  She still does (and it's been several years).  We had to lock the steering wheel to keep her from driving without a license.

 

Obviously, taking away someone's license is no guarantee they won't be driving.

 

"Funny" story about this -- she actually drove to the DMV to argue that she should still have her license.  And when I say "argue", well, let's just say she can be abusive when it suits her mood.

 

What I don't understand is why they didn't call the cops on her, as she was obviously driving away licenseless.

 

[Laura Corin]

Plus, our Constitution clearly limits the governments' (federal and state) ability to drastically limit or outright ban citizens' right to own firearms.

 

 

If the Constitution limited the rights of the government to constrain the ability to drive carriages, in order to allow freedom of movement and guerrilla action against an overmighty government, would there be a pro-car lobby working to limit car licensing?  I'm trying to work out to what extent this is about a) guns or b ) the Constitution.

 

As someone whose country works on developing consensus based on 1000 years of history, the reliance on the Constitution remains a mystery to me.  Again - this is honest curiosity, not an attack.

 

L

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I assure you that I most certainly do worry about it. 

 

I doubt most people worry about a truck bomb but I know all too well how on a beautiful day in April one's view of the world can change forever. 

 

I am from Oklahoma City.

 

So are you claiming that anyone who works in a federal building should "worry" about being the victim of a terrorist attack?  I don't.

[Slartibartfast]

So are you claiming that anyone who works in a federal building should "worry" about being the victim of a terrorist attack?  I don't.

 

Following the bombing several restrictions were placed on the sale of ammonium nitrate. Also several security measures were enacted.

 

Usually when something happens there are changes made. Buildings are made safer after an earthquake or a tornado. We all take off our shoes in order for them to be checked before getting in a plane. 

 

We all have to go through intrusive screening in order to even get on a plane. Does our right to privacy matter less than the right to bear arms? To me it does not.

 

There are those who believe we should have no restrictions whatesoever to the second amendment.  They do need to do a better job of enforcing the gun laws we currently have in place. Why does there have to be tragedy after tragedy before changes are made? In Virginia they were barely even reporting mental health concerns to the FBI until the Virginia Tech shooting happened. If that was properly enforced it probably would not have happened.

 

In many states one can still go to a gun show and buy a weapon, unrestricted.