[subego]

This will probably topic drift, which is fine, but there's something specific which is bothering me: that he's being used as an example of how women get the short end of the stick.

You'll get no argument from me women do, but I find trotting out this guy as a poster child to highlight the issue is... misguided.

My layman's understanding of mental health is that this guy is batshit. Hence, the rationale for his opinions are also batshit. Using him as an illustration of the problem makes it seem like the problem is perpetuated by batshit people.

Well, the problems women face are perpetuated by people who aren't batshit. That's why it's a problem.

[Demonhood]

Batshit people are those that take it to this extreme, but there are plenty of non-batshit men that have killed their girlfriend/wife, and it hasn't become a national conversation either. So I think using this tragedy as an example of how messed up things are is still useful.

Altho I'd prefer it if this topic wasn't titled after his name, as I don't like giving him any more attention.

[subego]

I'm too pressed at the moment to come up with a new title, but you have my blessings to change it.

[Chongo]

Rodger was seeing multiple therapists, had previous contacts with cops, and it sounds like his parents had tried to intervene. The early reports missed the fact the first three people killed were male. Two were his roommates. All three were Asian. Batshit indeed.

[andi*pandi]

Entitlement delusions. He knifed the people in the apartment, but shot the people on the street. He blamed women/better looking guys for not having a girlfriend but just hated the roommates. He was handsome enough, could have had a girlfriend, except in this case the girls could smell the crazy and kept their distance.

[subego]

That's the thing. In his case, I see "delusion" trumping any other word you attach to it. Sure, entitlement is a thing, and a very obnoxious thing at that, just like the fact it's in women's best interests to be leery of men.

I think attaching him to those things make a mockery of both situations.

He killed those people because he was crazy, not because he was entitled.

Likewise, actual entitled people don't have the crazy as an excuse.

[BadKosh]

To me, it looks like a rejection issue. Sure, he was creepy. He was delusional. He was creepy enough that all the women saw red flags. He was unable to deal with HIS issues. How much good had the mental health professional done? You don't see women killing everyone after being rejected/ignored. There is much more we don't yet know.

[subego]

Even before I read any details about this, my instincts told me three things:

1) Severe mental issues
2) Off his meds
3) Probably just acquired some form of adult-onset mental disorder on top of what he already has.


The first two have been confirmed.

[subego]

Not the greatest, but anyone with the ability can feel free to change the thread title to "Crazy Poster Children".

[OAW]

Anyone know his specific mental illness diagnosis? I ask because "crazy" is a bit too generic IMO and can often be used to make excuses for people who know exactly what they are doing.

OAW

[subego]

At the least, it was Aspergers.

[OAW]

My point exactly. Asperger's syndrome isn't associated with violent behavior. "Odd" and "creepy" perhaps. But not violent.

OAW

[subego]

Which is why my instincts are telling me he was hit with some adult-onset condition recently. Not necessarily schizophrenia, but something which doesn't hit you until late.

[OAW]

Perhaps. But given his "manifesto" it could very well be something alone this line ...

Narcissistic personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... and if so, it's just really hard for me to dismiss this as "crazy" in the psychotic or "lost touch with reality" sense of the term.

OAW

[subego]

I have only my instincts to guide me here, but they tell me he was way worse than that. He pretty clearly had some form of chemical imbalance. At least to my eyes.

[subego]

Also... Thanks for the title change!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, the problems women face are perpetuated by people who aren't considered batshit. That's why it's a problem.

Fixed.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Entitlement delusions. He knifed the people in the apartment, but shot the people on the street. He blamed women/better looking guys for not having a girlfriend but just hated the roommates. He was handsome enough, could have had a girlfriend, except in this case the girls could smell the crazy and kept their distance.

A good point. For a rich kid who looked like he did, he'd have to be pretty badly ****ed in the head to never get laid. It would have to have been very obvious.

I read a quote from his aunt saying he was an evil little scumbag from the age of two or three. Not exactly expert testimony but still pretty damning.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[andi*pandi]

Corporal punishment cures insanity? What?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Corporal punishment cures insanity? What?

The problem is we don't have enough bullies, duh. Being intimidated for being not fitting in, or for no reason at all, those were the good old days.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Even before I read any details about this, my instincts told me three things:

1) Severe mental issues
2) Off his meds
3) Probably just acquired some form of adult-onset mental disorder on top of what he already has.


The first two have been confirmed.

Do you think certain weapons, perhaps for purely cosmetic reasons, help stimulate violent acts that those dealing with emotional issues might be more susceptible to?

[subego]

The answer to that question is "yes", pretty much by definition.

Mental issues are just that... mental issues.

Someone who is crazy isn't acting rationally, so irrational behavior (such as letting the cosmetic appearance of a gun affect whether you want to blow someone away) is to be expected.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The answer to that question is "yes", pretty much by definition.

Mental issues are just that... mental issues.

Someone who is crazy isn't acting rationally, so irrational behavior (such as letting the cosmetic appearance of a gun affect whether you want to blow someone away) is to be expected.

The problem is, "mental issues" is not some boolean definable thing. There are undiagnosed issues, improperly diagnosed issues, people suffering through some sort of trauma without some history or definable problem with prescribed treatments, varying degrees of issues, things that we cannot diagnose or fully understand, etc. Right now there is somebody in the world having sex with an ATM. Why? Who knows, people are complex creatures that do strange, inexplicable things.

It is easy for the pro-gun community to pull out the "mental issues" card as a get-out-of-jail-free card when part of the best solution might entail reforming how weapons are obtained, what sort of background checks go on, what sort of weapons should be made available, etc. We've debated all of these sorts of issues at length, I'm probably not going to convince you that anything outweighs what you feel is the greater good of having guns available as they are (and maybe you're right), but my point is that we shouldn't be so accepting of vague and nebulous "mental issues" arguments as being short form for "not our fault, go away".

[subego]

Best solution for what?

Keeping guns away from people with "issues"? Okay I see that.

Acting as a check on the government? That would do the opposite. It would give the government a method to take your gun away. If the government can take it away, it's going to act as a poor check against itself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Best solution for what?

Keeping guns away from people with "issues"? Okay I see that.

Acting as a check on the government? That would do the opposite. It would give the government a method to take your gun away. If the government can take it away, it's going to act as a poor check against itself.

I understand that argument.

Unfortunately, we cannot be selective about how guns are used this way, we can only operate based on what happens in the aggregate. The more these arguments are pumped up, the more potential there is for bad stuff to happen with the guns that none of us want.

There needs to be a balance, and the willingness to strike a balance.

[subego]

A balance would be ideal, but there's an insurmountable problem in achieving it.

Government restriction of guns destroys why they're allowed in the first place. You can't balance that out. If you could, we would have done so already.

That said, it's not some "get out of jail free" card, it's just going to limit what can be rationally done about it from the standpoint of solving the problem through restriction. Methods other than restriction are what need to be pursued.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

A balance would be ideal, but there's an insurmountable problem in achieving it.

Government restriction of guns destroys why they're allowed in the first place. You can't balance that out. If you could, we would have done so already.

That said, it's not some "get out of jail free" card, it's just going to limit what can be rationally done about it from the standpoint of solving the problem through restriction. Methods other than restriction are what need to be pursued.

This is circular. Guns are already restricted by the government via background checks and requiring permits (are there states that don't require permits?) Are you a supporter of background checks and needing a permit?

[subego]

There are plenty of states which don't require permits. It frosts my ass I don't live in one. You can likely divine my opinion from that.

Background checks are iffy. I'm not sure they achieve much considering how easy it is to get one by illegitimate means, and I don't like government lists of who bought guns. They at least need brutal policies WRT non-retention of searches... which I'm guessing they don't have.

FWIW, I'm also against felons losing their rights after they served their time, whether it's the right to vote, or the right to bear arms.

[besson3c]

I don't think we are going to agree on much, except for the need for a balance, and perhaps that there are a number of pro-gun advocates that are not interested in budging?

Your retort may be that the anti-gun advocates (whatever they should be called) need to budge too, but, and we may not agree upon this either, I don't think there is much room for further budging, the pro-gun arguments have won out quite handily for quite some time.

As much as I'm growing to appreciate the need for keeping the government in check, second amendment rights, etc. I think there are plenty of pretty snazzy weapons in public circulation that demand of laxer background checks and the like to remove further barriers to obtaining a gun is gross overkill at this point. Even with the strictest of gun laws imaginable implemented tomorrow, the horse has left the barn - there is still plenty of weaponry out there that the government is probably not going to "come after us". I'd argue they don't need to spill blood to have their way with us, they are already doing so.

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree with all of this, but my point is that there needs to be limits placed on everything, including the limits themselves. Do you think there would be more violent crime with twice the amount of guns in circulation? Three times? How about $10 vending machine guns? After a certain point the availability is going to be a part of the problem, right? We disagree on where that point is, but I'm glad that we seem to agree that there should be some limits.

The problem is, it seems like the pro-gun rhetoric is a little too absolutist, like many right-wingers are, quite frankly. I think this is why I have that perception of a non-budging attitude and that the pro-gun community has been winning these debates for quite some time.

[ghporter]

I don't think it's "mental issues" as such that are the problem. I think it's the way people with mental issues are treated, and how that treatment is maintained. Some psych medications have unpleasant side effects like nausea or (more often) sedation, while others need to be administered very consistently. And then there's the issue of some family practice doctor deciding that someone needs a psychoactive medication, but who lacks the experience and expertise to actually manage that medication correctly.

After my mother died, my dad's doctor asked him if he was depressed. When Dad said he was, the doctor prescribed Prozac...without even apparently considering the situational nature of Dad's sadness. Dad said it made him feel like he was packed in cotton, and he quit taking it after a day or two. That's a real example of why family doctors shouldn't be prescribing this sort of thing.

When I was a kid, a lot of teachers were recommending to parents that they get their children on Ritalin, when those kids were just under-challenged in school. Today? There are a whole lot of different diagnoses that can be slapped on a kid, and a whole lot of pills for those diagnoses - and little in the way of real control of who's prescribing what should be considered a specialist's group of medications.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

In my day I remember watching a teacher choke hold a much larger high school bully to sleep, after he swung at the teacher; that guy never disrespected a teacher again... Nor did he ever go on a shooting rampage.

He knew his take down was deserved, hell he probably wanted someone to put him in line. Many psychologists will tell you that bullies crave boundaries. Its the victims who never hurt anyone themselves that tend to go on the rampages.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

Background checks are iffy. I'm not sure they achieve much considering how easy it is to get one by illegitimate means

Originally Posted by subego 

FWIW, I'm also against felons losing their rights after they served their time, whether it's the right to vote, or the right to bear arms.

Letting convicted felons buy guns is just madness.

[Waragainstsleep]

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - CNN.com

[Slow clap.]

[subego]

You're free to make an argument.

Let's take the first one. If the goal is to keep check on the government, is not sending the details of whomever buys guns counter to that goal?

[subego]

As for the second, don't even get me started on how utterly ****ed up our penal system is, but once you've paid your debt, you should again be afforded basic human dignity. Things like not having your previous incarceration be relevant on a job application, getting to have a say in government, and taking means to be prepared to protect one's self without fear of that being cause for further imprisonment.

Totally mad ****in idea, I know.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're free to make an argument.

Let's take the first one. If the goal is to keep check on the government, is not sending the details of whomever buys guns counter to that goal?

I can see it might sound like it is but no, not really.

I think by the time they start going door-to-door seizing guns without reason from everyone, people will notice and refuse to comply pretty quick.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

As for the second, don't even get me started on how utterly ****ed up our penal system is, but once you've paid your debt, you should again be afforded basic human dignity. Things like not having your previous incarceration be relevant on a job application, getting to have a say in government, and taking means to be prepared to protect one's self without fear of that being cause for further imprisonment.

Totally mad ****in idea, I know.

I'm all for them getting their vote back, I'm not so sure about employment. The latter and the gun ownership both relate to the following:

When you choose to become a criminal, it says that you are the sort of person who is prepared to disregard rules and boundaries and other people's property and/or safety. Some crimes also imply that you are lazy. You couldn't be bothered to work hard for a living so you became a thug or robbed a bank or whatever. I realise that some crimes are committed out of necessity or through drug addiction or under duress, so it isn't fair to tar everyone with those brushes, but an employer should really know if there is an above average change that you will blow your wages at the bookies at then clean him out, or if you might suddenly feel the urge to go out back and rape his wife or daughter in your lunch break.
Don't forget re-offending rates are high. People are not rehabilitated well.

Perhaps the restriction should be on violent criminals only or just for felonies rather than misdemeanours but some kind of restriction is absolutely necessary or the problem would get even worse.

[ghporter]

Federal law disqualifies persons who have felony convictions (defined as convictions that could result in a sentence of confinement of one year or more, since different states have different specific rules for what constitutes a felony), or convictions for specific misdemeanor domestic offenses (stalking, domestic abuse, etc.) from owning or purchasing guns.

The National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is supposed to NOT keep records of who is checked, and for people who are called in but can't be immediately given a yes/no answer, is only allowed to keep records until that decision is made.

The form gun buyers fill out to buy a gun stays with the licensed dealer until that dealer closes permanently, at which time all of that dealer's forms go to ATF where they are warehoused - they are not allowed to even scan the forms so that serial number checks can be done more quickly, because that violates a Congressional mandate against doing anything that could allow ATF to build "a system or records" that could possibly be used to construct a database of gun buyers. Since these serial number searches are always AFTER a firearm has been found or seized in relation to a crime, the manual work of looking up where a gun went after it got to a specific dealer isn't a time-sensitive issue, but it does take real physical work to do.

In other words, neither the dealer nor the buyer "tells the government" when someone buys a gun, with some exceptions: purchasing multiple handguns (I think it's 5) at one time, or purchasing multiples of specific firearms in states on the Mexican border, are reported to ATF on a same-day basis. Both are efforts to dissuade illegal gun trafficking. Both Glock and Sig have special pricing for "first responders," and limits on how many discounted firearms a single person can buy in a year; they know more about who buys those guns than the federal government does, unless the guns later wind up at a crime scene.

[subego]

And the NSA only gathers information for foreign intelligence, and would never pass domestic information along to the cops along with the advice they need to sanitize any evidence WRT the source.


As an aside, I think you could afford to be a little less trusting.

[Waragainstsleep]

So in reference to the story I posted above, does anyone think it would be unreasonable to charge someone with negligence? Leaving a 5 year old unsupervised with a loaded gun seems like a pretty good 'poster case' for negligence to me. At the very least you'd think someone might decide to remove the remaining child to the custody of others where it might be safer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm all for them getting their vote back, I'm not so sure about employment. The latter and the gun ownership both relate to the following:

When you choose to become a criminal, it says that you are the sort of person who is prepared to disregard rules and boundaries and other people's property and/or safety. Some crimes also imply that you are lazy. You couldn't be bothered to work hard for a living so you became a thug or robbed a bank or whatever. I realise that some crimes are committed out of necessity or through drug addiction or under duress, so it isn't fair to tar everyone with those brushes, but an employer should really know if there is an above average change that you will blow your wages at the bookies at then clean him out, or if you might suddenly feel the urge to go out back and rape his wife or daughter in your lunch break.
Don't forget re-offending rates are high. People are not rehabilitated well.

Perhaps the restriction should be on violent criminals only or just for felonies rather than misdemeanours but some kind of restriction is absolutely necessary or the problem would get even worse.

Your argument takes a turn towards the circular at the end. You note reoffending rates are high. Might that have something to do with not ever being able to get a job above "handyman" level once you get out? Your final sentence is a total head scratcher. You think recidivism would get worse if people had jobs?

As for the bulk of your argument, I'm fine with employers using their wits to decide whether a candidate is suitable for employment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I can see it might sound like it is but no, not really.

I think by the time they start going door-to-door seizing guns without reason from everyone, people will notice and refuse to comply pretty quick.

A) It won't be "without reason". If one which people naturally bought into didn't present itself, it could easily be manufactured.

B) It wouldn't be everyone on the list for the exact reasons you describe. The list would be used as a starting point to determine who would be the most effective people to disarm.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm not sure where I'm circling. Perhaps I didn't explain very well.

Criminals should get their vote back when freed.
I don't believe records should be immediately expunged and I think they should be available to prospective employers. Perhaps there should be a time limit after which they disappear, the limit being reset upon any re-offence. Perhaps the limit should depend on the severity of the crime.


You don't think it makes sense to refuse gun ownership to people convicted of more serious or violent crimes? Whyever not?
Is whyever a word? My spellcheck says no.


The problem with citizens owning guns as a check on the government is the abject lack of guidance (or legal definition) of what constitutes government tyranny. Otherwise their is a fine line open to interpretation of what is reasonable and good, and what is simply domestic terrorism.

[subego]

Going in reverse order...

I don't see why tyranny needs to have a specified threshold for guns to be successful check against it. Likewise, deterrence is tip of the spear, as it were.

Felons should be able to arm themselves both as a reinstatement of their rights (like all the other ones they should get back), and for the same reason anyone else gets to arm themselves. The most important from a personal standpoint is being able to protect yourself. This is especially true when you have to live in the kind of places you do when dirt broke. Which brings us to why your dirt broke... you don't have a job.

I'm not sure what the system is in the UK, but in the US, every job application asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony?". Those that have "yes" on them get thrown in the trash.

You reap what you sow.

[ghporter]

Felons should have a standardized process to restore their federal voting rights. This process must take into account the type of crime they committed, their efforts at restitution or mitigation of their acts, and evidence that they have taken steps to be something more like model citizens. I was talking to a first generation American citizen last week, and he was discussing the kind of classes his parents had to take to earn their citizenship. That sort of thing might suit the "model citizen" thing I mentioned. It wouldn't hurt most of us who were born here to take those classes anyway, since it seems like most of us tended to doze through Civics in school...

I do NOT believe that anyone convicted of various serious, violent crimes (assault with a deadly weapon, homicide, aggravated rape, kidnapping, to name a few) should EVER regain their voting rights. On the other hand, I strongly believe that it should be automatic for anyone whose conviction is overturned to have his or her rights reinstated immediately, though this is hardly the case - it takes a huge effort for someone who has been exonerated to get his or her rights restored, when it should simply be part of the court's decree.

Stripping felons of their rights under the Second Amendment is a derivation of the original reason for that Amendment: the joint defense of one's community. People who have behaved in such a way that they have had to be separated from the rest of society are seen as not being oriented to that sort of joint responsibility. Another angle is that (violent) felons have shown that they aren't to be trusted to properly participate in society. Either way, the current rules are too broad. If someone has, as I described above, demonstrated that he or she is rehabilitated sufficiently to regain the right to vote, maybe they are also sufficiently socially oriented to be allowed to assume the responsibilities of Second Amendment rights. Maybe that same Citizenship course that I mentioned earlier as a prerequisite?

[subego]

Shouldn't the "standardized process" be "serving time"?

If these people are unfit for society, what's your rationale for letting them out? What do you think will be the result of making these unfit people second-class citizens? That will help the situation?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see why tyranny needs to have a specified threshold for guns to be successful check against it.

In a society where almost all of the guns belong to thoughtful, educated, intelligent folk (like the one that wrote the second amendment), such a threshold is indeed unnecessary. However when you look at the people today who are so keen on protecting and exercising their rights under that amendment today, they are the last members of society you would want making the decision that the government needs to be overthrown. The problem arises when there is enough of them to out-shout and overrule the sensible people keeping them in check.

Idiocracy - YouTube

[subego]

So, as someone keen on protecting those rights, I am thoughtless, uneducated, and stupid?

I don't think that's where you're trying to go, but that's where you ended up.

Is it possible "thoughtful, educated American supports the Second Amendment" isn't exactly a page-turner, and doesn't get coverage in the media in proportion to its prevalence?

[Waragainstsleep]

I was of course referring to the sorts of idiots who clustered around around Cliven Bundy pulling over cars and searching people. You know, doing all the things they claim to be totally unacceptable for a government to do.