Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

[smjjames]

I'm a terrible person, my first thought after seeing the "ban guns" and "good luck killing 50 with a knife" was 'trebuchets loaded with knives' and it seems like there are lots of layers of inappropriateness there.

Including poor performance. It's hard enough to kill someone with a flying knife when they're close and you're in relatively precise control, a siege engine induced knife rain probably has worse odds of killing a mass of people than just taking some of the knives and stabbing them by hand.

Any case, if nothing else, can say the LVPD look to deserve some kudos this time. Response time was pretty damn impressive, and it's more than a little likely they stopped a good chunk of people from getting shot up.

If you're desperate enough to load knives and junk into a siege weapon, then you REALLY have some ammo supply issues.

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

Of course something wasn't right upstairs, but he'd have to be diagnosed in the first place with the paperwork that the law can act on in order for a law on banning mentally ill from owning guns to work in the first place. Which is why that Trump voters statement is unworkable.

They either haven't found any clues (still early though) as to why or they have and are keeping it under wraps for whatever reason for now.

[Frumple]

Hell, that we know as much about the guy as we do when it's been less than 24 hours since the attack is kinda' stretching the boundaries of what you can reasonably expect. More'll get dug up over the next few days, and then we'll either know more or we won't.

[smjjames]

Unconfirmed report that the guy actually had up to 20 guns, including some AR-15 and AK-47 types.

Also, bouncing off the article, question for those familiar with guns, is it possible to shoot so many bullets with modern smokeless powder bullets that it sets off the smoke alarm? I'm really incredulous about that because unless the guy used black powder in his bullets for some bizarre reason, I don't see how it could set off the smoke alarm.

It's plausible that it's a really sensitive smoke alarm or that the hot smoking barrel of one of them set it off.

Also, if you're not part of some militia group (as the second amendment mentions), I don't see why anybody would even need weapons purely designed for war.

[Lord Shonus]

Not implausible at all. Smokeless powders are not really smokeless (or, for that matter, powders), they just produce so little smoke compared to black powder that they might as well be. Smoke detectors tend to be pretty sensitive, and the amount of smoke I've seen from even moderate shooting could easily set one off.

[smjjames]

Plus the enclosed space, and I see. Lack of knowledge (hence the question) and a mild misunderstanding on my part.

[EnigmaticHat]

Heh. GOP mouths brushing it off as mental illness, anyway. Then promptly and persistently does damn near everything it can to kneecap the fields related to treating the issues related, wreck attempts towards outreach in hopes of preventing all sorts of shit, and shame attempts to seek help. All while very much intentionally and persistently trying to destroy any and all capability, government or otherwise, to track warning signs.

From what I can tell, part of the advantage of playing it off as mental illness is an excuse to go after mentally ill people.

The NRA has for a while been calling for an "active database" of the mentally ill.  That makes me terrified on so many levels.  What if employers got access to it?  What if it got hacked?  What if it had all the problems of the sex offender registry?  And then more long term, the mentally ill are the only remaining "acceptable target" for eugenics in this country.  If someone wanted to sterilize us or set some violent NGO on us that would be a pretty damn effective first step.

I mean hell, what happens when someone on the list carries out a mass shooting?  It seems like at that point you could justify whatever the fuck you want in the name of preventing further attacks.

IIRC a year or two Republicans tried to actually put a watered down version of that policy into effect (it would only target certain people, but again the moment someone off the list carries out an attack you can just throw whoever you want on the list).  From what I remember they failed but not by a super wide margin.

[EnigmaticHat]

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

This logic bothers me.  Because they did something you don't understand, they're mentally ill?  Was everyone in Rwanda taking a machete to their neighbors mentally ill too?  Is the person who murders their spouse in a rage mentally ill?

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

This logic bothers me.  Because they did something you don't understand, they're mentally ill?  Was everyone in Rwanda taking a machete to their neighbors mentally ill too?  Is the person who murders their spouse in a rage mentally ill?

I think that yes, it points clearly to a mental illness outside of another explanation. Being manipulated by a political overlord or racial hatred would provide another explanation. Murder of a single person you consider to be a strong antagonist provides another explanation, though mental illness cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.

Killing 50 people and then providing no reason would point towards a mental illness, because mental illness is in fact described as "any psychiatric disorder that causes untypical behavior". So unless they find his note that says "I did it for the Russians" or whatever, then yes, it would be almost logically guaranteed. Terrorism, for instance, loses all meaning unless the people you are terrorizing know why you are doing it.

I realize it's preliminary to discuss motive before they find/don't find one, though.

[Egan_BW]

Humans have a pretty strong mental taboo about killing each other. Anyone who can get over that and kill anyway either has a reduced "not killing people" instinct for some reason or is under quite a lot of stress.

[EnigmaticHat]

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

This logic bothers me.  Because they did something you don't understand, they're mentally ill?  Was everyone in Rwanda taking a machete to their neighbors mentally ill too?  Is the person who murders their spouse in a rage mentally ill?

I think that yes, it points clearly to a mental illness outside of another explanation. Being manipulated by a political overlord or racial hatred would provide another explanation. Murder of a single person you consider to be a strong antagonist provides another explanation, though mental illness cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.

Killing 50 people and then providing no reason would point towards a mental illness, because mental illness is in fact described as "any psychiatric disorder that causes untypical behavior". So unless they find his note that says "I did it for the Russians" or whatever, then yes, it would be almost logically guaranteed. Terrorism, for instance, loses all meaning unless the people you are terrorizing know why you are doing it.

I realize it's preliminary to discuss motive before they find/don't find one, though.

That's not even the definition of mental illness.  The medical definition of mental illness (very very broadly) any mental condition that causes significant distress or disability to the sufferer.  A mental condition that harms others but not you isn't mental illness, its being an asshole.  There is no valid non-medical definition of mental illness; a harmless mental condition isn't an illness anymore than you could be sick with a harmless bacteria or need surgery because you're slightly stronger than average or such.

(side note: this is why antisocial personality disorder is largely outside the sphere of modern medicine, because it only hurts the effected individual if they're dumb or reckless.  A smart "sociopath" may be advantaged rather than harmed)

[smjjames]

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

This logic bothers me.  Because they did something you don't understand, they're mentally ill?  Was everyone in Rwanda taking a machete to their neighbors mentally ill too?  Is the person who murders their spouse in a rage mentally ill?

I think that one was in response to my posting about the Trump voter. Of course though, there are tons of things that get lumped into mentally ill, including PTSD. I was implying the same thing when I was hyperbolic about being from a dysfunctional family. And then there are those people who are just angry about something and use a convenient ranged weapon to solve the problem for them.

I mean, he also shot 50 strangers at a music festival. Unless they find some kind of manifesto, I feel like that counts as solid evidence that something wasn't right upstairs.

I don't mean to be a broken record, but we've created a culture where you can publicly advocate murder and not only get away with that but also be heralded as brave and right by thousands of people. That's where we are right now as a society in the USA.

This logic bothers me.  Because they did something you don't understand, they're mentally ill?  Was everyone in Rwanda taking a machete to their neighbors mentally ill too?  Is the person who murders their spouse in a rage mentally ill?

I think that yes, it points clearly to a mental illness outside of another explanation. Being manipulated by a political overlord or racial hatred would provide another explanation. Murder of a single person you consider to be a strong antagonist provides another explanation, though mental illness cannot be ruled out as a contributing factor.

Killing 50 people and then providing no reason would point towards a mental illness, because mental illness is in fact described as "any psychiatric disorder that causes untypical behavior". So unless they find his note that says "I did it for the Russians" or whatever, then yes, it would be almost logically guaranteed. Terrorism, for instance, loses all meaning unless the people you are terrorizing know why you are doing it.

I realize it's preliminary to discuss motive before they find/don't find one, though.

Gun laws regarding mentally ill don't work if the person hasn't been diagnosed as such, which was the point I was making earlier.

Humans have a pretty strong mental taboo about killing each other. Anyone who can get over that and kill anyway either has a reduced "not killing people" instinct for some reason or is under quite a lot of stress.

*ahem* Soldiers and the like? Still pretty damn stressful for them though.

[Frumple]

Gun laws regarding mentally ill don't work if the person hasn't been diagnosed as such, which was the point I was making earlier.

*waggles hand* You might be able to manage something if you require screening for ownership. It's probably a kinda' farcically bad idea, but one way to go about things if your standard means of evaluating psychological instability isn't working, is to introduce a means specifically tailored to firearm ownership and gate the privilege with it.

IIRC a year or two Republicans tried to actually put a watered down version of that policy into effect (it would only target certain people, but again the moment someone off the list carries out an attack you can just throw whoever you want on the list).  From what I remember they failed but not by a super wide margin.

I'unno, I think I could be convinced to trade that in exchange for an active database of firearm owners and CCW permit carriers to go along with it (bonus points, if they included people that qualified but didn't file for the latter, I'd be in all three :V). Relative bonus points, if you don't like the concept marrying them is a pretty surefire way to kill it in congress.

[smjjames]

You'd need more than 60 Democrat Senators and a healthy Democrat margin (possibly supermajority?) in the House and possibly a Democrat president for any sort of active database of firearm owners to get through. Not to mention other essential stuff like funding the ATF properly so that they can actually modernize and other stuff.

[Baffler]

Gun laws regarding mentally ill don't work if the person hasn't been diagnosed as such, which was the point I was making earlier.

*waggles hand* You might be able to manage something if you require screening for ownership. It's probably a kinda' farcically bad idea, but one way to go about things if your standard means of evaluating psychological instability isn't working, is to introduce a means specifically tailored to firearm ownership and gate the privilege with it.

Firearm ownership is a right, not a privilege. The distinction is important.

I'unno, I think I could be convinced to trade that in exchange for an active database of firearm owners and CCW permit carriers to go along with it (bonus points, if they included people that qualified but didn't file for the latter, I'd be in all three :V). Relative bonus points, if you don't like the concept marrying them is a pretty surefire way to kill it in congress.

People are (rightly!) concerned about a list like that being created for the same reason EnigmaticHat is concerned above about the creation of an active database of people with mental health problems. It cannot possibly exist for any purpose other than to discriminate, legally or otherwise, against the people whose names are on it.