When are we going to get serious about the criminally insane?

[KimGordon67]

You and the individual you quoted may want to look up world murder statistics.

Dude, this argument is so old. Within the OECD countries, the US is only outranked in homicide rates by Mexico, Turkey, and Estonia. (Source.)
Mexico = one of only three countries in the world that positions gun ownership as a 'constitutional right'.
So in the OECD, half of the four top rates of homicide are countries in which gun ownership is 'constitutional'. Correlation doesn't PROVE causation, but in this instance it's sure as hell suggestive.

But since you were talking about mass shootings to begin, not any old homicide ... on that basis, only Yemen outranks the US. Well done. (Source.)

 

[KimGordon67]

In almost all of the mass shootings over the years there is one common thread, in virtually all of the cases the shooter was insane.

(a) I think wanting to shoot up a crapload of people would, by definition, suggest that one was insane. Not exactly a great revelation.
(b) There's one other blindingly obvious common variable that's present in 100% of mass shootings.

 

[DMBFFF]

Obsessed with race and gender....totally not a bigot though.

Maybe he's obsessed, maybe not: the charts are there.



Whether you're for or against guns, you're going to have to face the facts KimGordon67 brought up. One explanation are parts of countries, and many OECD countries could fit in the US. Another, is the weapons in such homicides.

What CandiCame posts I've heard elsewhere: those with psychological issues are more likely to suffer violence than inflict it. FWIW, I feel that psychological tendencies aren't too much s
a factor. I think it's more sociological.



Proportionally, Americans are less murderous than decades ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

New York State's homicide rates has halved from 1996 to 2017, though California came close.

South Dakota has doubled.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_states_by_homicides

The Mexican rates are even more varied.

According to the WP page, Colima is almost 50x as homicidal than Yucatán, which is about 40% as homicidal as the US.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

The article mentions US, Mexico, and Guatemala.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

 

[SpeareChucker]

A few years ago, there was a discussion here around a shooting in which the perpetrator's family had gone to the authorities numerous times asking that his guns be taken away and "something" done to help him and them. They were told repeatedly nothing could be done as there was no"proof" he was a threat; until there was proof that he was, and it was too late.

This is the vicious catch-22 that the courts have put us into.


On another note, it is painful to read candi because not only is he conflating issues, but he is personalizing them because he seems to feel that if we come for them, then by extension we are coming or him. Is he that fucked up n the head?

 

[DMBFFF]

This is the vicious catch-22 that the courts have put us into.


On another note, it is painful to read candi because not only is he conflating issues, but he is personalizing them because he seems to feel that if we come for them, then by extension we are coming or him. Is he that fucked up n the head?

He might have at least somewhat of a reason for wariness.

 

[bellisarius]

You didn't link a study, you linked the FBI's entire violent crime statistical analysis division. What the fuck is anybody supposed to do with this? Go through the whole thing for you and probably find the numbers I already listed?

That's right oh genius with numbers. Look'em up. No statistical "norming" or gerrymandering going on in those pages, just the raw numbers. Make us proud and show us that you can indeed look shit up for yourself.

 

[mAnn_Tagonist]

EVIL WHITE MEN!!!

SOCIALIST COMMUNISTS!!!

FASCIST LIBERTARIAN FEMINISTS!!!

NAZI CAPITALISTS!!!

BIGOTED SEXISTS!!!

RACIST RACIALISTS WHO RACE RACECARS AND RUN RICE ROCKETS RHYTHMICALLY!!!

MONSANTO MONTALBAN!!!

(R's)!!!

(D's)!!!

(I's)!!!

(M&M's!!!)

LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY!!!

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e83efff147c45e884da3e73f867be4a8/tenor.gif?itemid=9450407

You knowz how it iz, Bots! C'mon, give us that bRo00taL cheer!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

*chuckles*
Exactly, hes the board bitch.

 

[IG_88]

Internet message boards all over would be awful quiet if all the criminally insane were locked up.

 

[HisArpy]

I actually think the OP is trying to find a way through the social issues surrounding these types of events.

And, of course, immediately the chicken shits and cowards start screaming that it's all the white man's fault that we even allow guns in the world in the first place. Because, without guns, these things wouldn't happen.

Except they do, the killers just use different ways to scare the crap out of the chicken shits and cowards.

Perhaps we should ban pipe bombs. Or mail bombs. Or biological weapons. Or the act of flying airplanes into tall buildings. Or horror movies (because every horror movie is basically a primer on how to terrorize and kill defenseless victims).

Mentally stable people don't do the things that mentally unstable people do. The problem isn't the weapon, it's the mental state of the person who misuses the weapon. Until the chicken shits and cowards admit that, and we collectively find a way to address the real problem, these things will continue to happen.

It's not the gun. It's not the ammo. Laws and licensing have done NOTHING to prevent these things from happening. Because it's not the gun, it's the person behind the gun. Address the root problem not the political agenda.

 

[Rightguide]

I actually think the OP is trying to find a way through the social issues surrounding these types of events.

And, of course, immediately the chicken shits and cowards start screaming that it's all the white man's fault that we even allow guns in the world in the first place. Because, without guns, these things wouldn't happen.

Except they do, the killers just use different ways to scare the crap out of the chicken shits and cowards.

Perhaps we should ban pipe bombs. Or mail bombs. Or biological weapons. Or the act of flying airplanes into tall buildings. Or horror movies (because every horror movie is basically a primer on how to terrorize and kill defenseless victims).

Mentally stable people don't do the things that mentally unstable people do. The problem isn't the weapon, it's the mental state of the person who misuses the weapon. Until the chicken shits and cowards admit that, and we collectively find a way to address the real problem, these things will continue to happen.

It's not the gun. It's not the ammo. Laws and licensing have done NOTHING to prevent these things from happening. Because it's not the gun, it's the person behind the gun. Address the root problem not the political agenda.

This guy was already known as a 5150 case when he was confronted and interviewed by the police after shooting a hole in his mother's house. His gun rights should have been questioned right then and there.

 

[SpeareChucker]

The mental health professionals took over from the police and decided that trashing his own home was not a threat to himself or the public. As Biden-time pointed out, the authorities pretty much can't do anything until the perp actually harms someone.

Five-one-Five oh, somebody call the Po Po!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Five-one-Five oh, somebody call the Po Po!

funky chunky, you want my flow?

hell no, we want Moe!

https://media.giphy.com/media/J3SBbo8rSONAk/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/FEWXPbLxkQ9FK/giphy.gif

https://66.media.tumblr.com/3f5500ccf0165dd60b6925a541347fb9/tumblr_oku9hpmh1L1vbcnq8o1_500.gif

 

[CandiCame]

This is the vicious catch-22 that the courts have put us into.


On another note, it is painful to read candi because not only is he conflating issues, but he is personalizing them because he seems to feel that if we come for them, then by extension we are coming or him. Is he that fucked up n the head?

They ARE coming for me. That's not me being paranoid- I know that a lot of right-leaning folk are paranoid and I'm getting lost in the screaming, but if you read my other posts you know I'm not some right-wing gun nut.

The laws that people have tried to pass about mental health in relation to gun ownership are very much geared toward me and others like me- people who have already been diagnosed with mental disorders PARTICULARLY those that are associated with behavioral outbursts.

OP specifically mentioned that he thought the problem was that we were out on the street and not back in institutions. OP was, SPECIFICALLY, gunning for me.

Less than 5% of mass shooters fit into the category of people that they want to restrict ownership for. The vast majority of us are responsible gun owners with no history of ANY gun violence and no reason to believe that'll manifest in the future. It's not paranoia when these things explicitly state that they're coming for you. They're not coming for everyone. They are coming for me.

I'm about as far left as a person can get, and I actually use my guns to live a liberal lifestyle. I don't like factory farming, I like sustainable hunting where animals aren't tortured, corralled in pens, given hormone disorders- factory farming is awful and I don't want to support it, but we know vegan boycotts don't do any good because the grain companies and meat companies fall under the same parent company. We have to show them that there are sustainable alternatives for omnivores. To do that ethically, we need guns. Bow hunting is less efficient, and I'm bad at it. Doing that, having to track something as it wanders around with a wound, doesn't make me much better than the thing I'm protesting.

There are lots of reasons to own a gun that aren't related to killing humans. And there is no evidence that crazy people are more likely to kill humans- or even hurt them. There are mountains of evidence that we're more likely to be hurt or killed.

This is personal to me, because I am a member of the group that is being attacked. It's not a, "I think that if they'll come for them, they'll come for me." I'm one of them. I am a crazy person.

But like most crazy people, I take my meds, I went to therapy and learned how to control it. You can't look at me and know that I'm crazy. If you're in the US, and you're somewhere in a group with 5 people- one of them is fucking crazy. The fact that you thought I was advocating for someone else and not myself should tell you how disingenuous this attitude is. You don't know who is and isn't crazy, because we're not the image that you're seeing in your head.

What's actually happening here, is people want someone to blame. They don't want it to be that there's a problem with the way that white men are socialized that makes SANE people easy to indoctrinate or liable to snap. They don't want to understand the complex social issues that have created this problem, so they try to find an easy out: Blame the crazy folks. No one will listen to them or believe them when they try to defend themselves, because they're already crazy, and mental illness has a social stigma attached to them that makes them inherently less trustworthy, because people are assholes, not because there's any proof that they ARE less trustworthy.

There's literally no proof that crazy folks are violent. I can link to study after study, but yhall already know that. That becomes obvious if you think about it for a minute- people in the middle of a behavioral outburst cannot plan an attack. You do good to remember how breathing works. The biggest danger is that you're going to hurt yourself, or the person trying to bring you down/restrain you.

There's no proof that any of those laws, or this mindset in general, will do a goddamn thing to prevent mass shootings- BECAUSE CRAZY PEOPLE ARE NOT THE ONES DOING MASS SHOOTINGS. Yhall are out in left field.

How is this conflating anything? Op said that crazy people were out here shooting folks and asked what needed to be done about it.

That core concept is inherently false. Crazy folks are not out here shooting people. Crazy folks are out here getting shot. You don't need to be asking how to stop us from doing something we're not doing, you need to be asking how to protect us. It's ridiculous to try to take something away from someone when they haven't done anything.

I'm not saying not to do background checks for violent crimes. I'm saying that attributing violence to mental illness is disingenuous at best- but I don't think this is a best case scenario. I think that this is being wrong on purpose, because it's too hard to address the real issues and people just want a scapegoat. So we can look at the facts and see that restricting gun ownership on people who have mental illness will NOT reduce violent crime- so the only reason to do it is to give people a false sense of security and not to give a fuck that it restricts my rights.

 

[doowdniw]

Just because someone is an asshole, that doesn't necessarily make them insane. I can think of another thread that these shootings all had in common. They were shootings.

 

[bellisarius]

They ARE coming for me. That's not me being paranoid- I know that a lot of right-leaning folk are paranoid and I'm getting lost in the screaming, but if you read my other posts you know I'm not some right-wing gun nut.

Blah, blah, blah.

That core concept is inherently false. Crazy folks are not out here shooting people. Crazy folks are out here getting shot. You don't need to be asking how to stop us from doing something we're not doing, you need to be asking how to protect us. It's ridiculous to try to take something away from someone when they haven't done anything.

I'm not saying not to do background checks for violent crimes. I'm saying that attributing violence to mental illness is disingenuous at best- but I don't think this is a best case scenario. I think that this is being wrong on purpose, because it's too hard to address the real issues and people just want a scapegoat. So we can look at the facts and see that restricting gun ownership on people who have mental illness will NOT reduce violent crime- so the only reason to do it is to give people a false sense of security and not to give a fuck that it restricts my rights.

Read with a little more care in the future. You've once more managed to read words never spoken.

To recap, in my opinion anyone who sets out to randomly murder people is insane. We don't have the legal tools to deal with the chronically mentally ill let alone the insane. Within the group we'll refer to as the "mentally ill", the majority of whom are non-violent, there is a subgroup that is truly criminally insane and without intervention will become the next mass murderer. Therefore society needs a way to identify and deal with that subgroup.

The laws ARE in place to deal with the insane re. gun ownership, unfortunately they're more notable in their lack of observance than the contrary. In virtually every case (yes, there are exceptions) of mass shootings there were warning signs that were NOT acted on for one reason or another.

 

[coati]

Focus on threats, not the definition of insanity

When are we going to get serious about the BBs?

That's the real issue. As long as there are BBs, the world is screwed.

Yes, those who are advocating violence against the objects of their hate should not be allowed to possess guns and should be actively monitored for said possession. If it requires the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to actively monitor the BBs for gun possession (as suggested by a recently retired Supreme Court justice), so be it.

Active monitoring sends a broader message to the person making threats or advocating violence that will ultimately also help control other acts of mass violence, such as bombings and mass vehicular homicide. Making threats should be taken much more seriously. These people should be identified as pariahs and should be subject to active monitoring by law enforcement. When a law enforcement official shows up at your door as a result of on-line threats, suddenly your behavior will not seem so inconsequential or "cute".

Focus on threats, not on the definition of insanity. BB is a good example, because he is openly racist and misogynistic, and he has crossed the line by advocating violence. Obviously he has suffered no significant consequences for this behavior, and has consistently maintained an on-line presence despite crossing the line repeatedly.

 

[jaF0]

The Second doesn't really have to even be altered. It just needs to be interpreted properly. There is no allowance for everyone to have how ever many of whatever they want. There could be severe restrictions as to the type and quantity of 'arms' in any one household and still be within the intent.

 

[jaF0]

To recap, in my opinion anyone who sets out to randomly murder people is insane.

But that's not the reality. Many of these people are otherwise 'good' people who get angry or stressed out over something. The Family Annihilators are almost always 'good' parents who become faced with financial or job stresses that put them over the edge with no outward warning signs to others.

Same with the workplace shooters. They may not have been the best employees, but that doesn't mean there were signs of them being insane to the point of justifying commitment.

Now, if you're talking about committing everyone who gets depressed, stressed or just has a few bad days, you'll need to start turning cities into walled prisons to hold them all.

 

[Busybody18]

Yes, those who are advocating violence against the objects of their hate should not be allowed to possess guns and should be actively monitored for said possession. If it requires the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to actively monitor the BBs for gun possession (as suggested by a recently retired Supreme Court justice), so be it.

Active monitoring sends a broader message to the person making threats or advocating violence that will ultimately also help control other acts of mass violence, such as bombings and mass vehicular homicide. Making threats should be taken much more seriously. These people should be identified as pariahs and should be subject to active monitoring by law enforcement. When a law enforcement official shows up at your door as a result of on-line threats, suddenly your behavior will not seem so inconsequential or "cute".

Focus on threats, not on the definition of insanity. BB is a good example, because he is openly racist and misogynistic, and he has crossed the line by advocating violence. Obviously he has suffered no significant consequences for this behavior, and has consistently maintained an on-line presence despite crossing the line repeatedly.

show me

where "you" get that from

 

[HisArpy]

The Second doesn't really have to even be altered. It just needs to be interpreted properly. There is no allowance for everyone to have how ever many of whatever they want. There could be severe restrictions as to the type and quantity of 'arms' in any one household and still be within the intent.

This thinking is just as ridiculous as that tweet the other day about how Afghanistan is "safer" in regards to gun violence than the US - IF you take out all the deaths from war and suicide and shit that is.

Advocating that we reinterpret the 2nd Amendment so that we can "restrict" gun ownership/use is just as dumb. Taking away MY guns won't do squat for the guy in the next country who decides to use HIS GUN to come HERE and murder people.

You know, like those guys in France tried to do on the train.

Crazies pick on the defenseless. If you don't want to be a victim of a crazy, you shouldn't put yourself in a position where you're defenseless. It's that simple. Thinking otherwise puts you in the camp of the crazies.

 

[Busybody18]

When are we going to get serious about the criminally insane>

In Florida they allowed the Parkland shooter to register to vote!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bellisarius]

The Second doesn't really have to even be altered. It just needs to be interpreted properly. There is no allowance for everyone to have how ever many of whatever they want. There could be severe restrictions as to the type and quantity of 'arms' in any one household and still be within the intent.

But that's not the reality. Many of these people are otherwise 'good' people who get angry or stressed out over something. The Family Annihilators are almost always 'good' parents who become faced with financial or job stresses that put them over the edge with no outward warning signs to others.

Same with the workplace shooters. They may not have been the best employees, but that doesn't mean there were signs of them being insane to the point of justifying commitment.

Now, if you're talking about committing everyone who gets depressed, stressed or just has a few bad days, you'll need to start turning cities into walled prisons to hold them all.

The second HAS been interpreted properly. While you disagree, most constitutional scholars disagree with you. I'll go with the scholars.

And you, like CC, seem to want to read things in my statement that aren't there. To randomly murder a group of strangers is IMO insanity. Workplace and family shootings (and some school shootings) are also the act of the insane even if that insanity is temporary. Those would be the hardest to anticipate because they do snap and act out of impulse and they will always be with us guns or not.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Yes, those who are advocating violence against the objects of their hate should not be allowed to possess guns and should be actively monitored for said possession. If it requires the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to actively monitor the BBs for gun possession (as suggested by a recently retired Supreme Court justice), so be it.

Active monitoring sends a broader message to the person making threats or advocating violence that will ultimately also help control other acts of mass violence, such as bombings and mass vehicular homicide. Making threats should be taken much more seriously. These people should be identified as pariahs and should be subject to active monitoring by law enforcement. When a law enforcement official shows up at your door as a result of on-line threats, suddenly your behavior will not seem so inconsequential or "cute".

Focus on threats, not on the definition of insanity. BB is a good example, because he is openly racist and misogynistic, and he has crossed the line by advocating violence. Obviously he has suffered no significant consequences for this behavior, and has consistently maintained an on-line presence despite crossing the line repeatedly.

BB doesn't own any guns.

 

[DeluxAuto]

When are we going to get serious about the criminally insane>

In Florida they allowed the Parkland shooter to register to vote!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has the Parkland shooter been convicted of a crime?

 

[coati]

BB doesn't own any guns.

Even if that is true, it is not the main point. He should have some law enforcement consequences for advocating violence against the objects of his hate.

It is becoming very obvious that we cannot have a stable and civil society otherwise.