What if it's not a mental health issue?
- Thread starter NDallasRuss
- Start date
That's ~1.5% you've sampled and determined to be "gang banger crap".
Not that I understand why "gang banger crap" is acceptable, but putting that aside, what portion of the 355 mass shootings this year need not be "gang banger crap" before we decide that it's a problem worth addressing?
Not that I understand why "gang banger crap" is acceptable, but putting that aside, what portion of the 355 mass shootings this year need not be "gang banger crap" before we decide that it's a problem worth addressing?
There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home....
Last edited:
90 percent of people are basically sheep. The remaining 10 percent are free thinkers. Some are smart, some aren't, some are good, and some are bad. All are hated by the other 90 percent.
It's "wrong" because you believe that it's wrong. You believe that it's wrong because you've been taught that it's wrong - legally, morally, etc. But what if people are no longer coming equipped with the same moral compass or societal restraints as you, or I, or most people? If their reality - at a basic level - is that it's not wrong, then it can't be treated with medicine, and it shouldn't be defined as an illness. Their view of life, and their innate reaction to strike out at others that they perceive as a threat, or even just because they're weaker, could be a trait that's honed and altered and then passed on - like hair or eye color.
And the context is only there because you've added it in order to make it fit your view of the world - of what is right and wrong - based on everything that you know and feel. But context is perceived and applied differently by different people - just like one's moral threshold for what's right, versus what's wrong. It varies from person to person, depending on the person, depending on the conditions, and depending on the point in time, at which the situation is evaluated.
For example, strip away the context of the point in time in which this is happening. Line these incidents up in a vacuum against all other periods in world history. Do you think that more people are killed more violently now, than at other times in world history? Do you think that the people killed now are being killed for less of a reason than people that have been killed at other points in world history? The view of what's right and wrong has shifted - for better or worse - faster than humans can evolve. It took a couple of million years for humans to begin to walk upright, but we should expect that we can change our brain's wiring when it comes to killing other people (even "innocent" people) in a few hundred years - AND expect 100% adoption of these refined views?
Maybe even strip away the context that that everyone involved are humans. We're animals - maybe a bit more evolved in some ways, but still animals. The single biggest objective of all animals is to thrive and reproduce, right? It may be socially accepted that the definition of "thriving" is to work hard, get an education, make lots of money, buy land, etc, but what if other people have different definitions of "thriving"? What if a growing number of people are wired to perceive thriving as eliminating the competition. Other species of animals do this all the time. The kill competitors - not for food - but to help ensure their own survival, and the propagation of their bloodline.
What if the circumstances of the world that we inhabit today are such that a growing number of people can not compete to survive based on the "economic" definition of survival, but have adapted so that they are suitable to survive and flourish because they've gained a competitive advantage in another way: in their ability to overcome the competition? We're still animals, and it's still fundamentally about survival. Maybe the paradigm is shifting and the people that can't adapt are mis-categorizing the next phase in evolution as an "illness" or an "issue".
Some of it may be related to prescribed mood altering drugs so many in this country now take (and then stop taking). This will cause a roll of eyes I am sure, but I think the graphically violent , especially the first person shooter games, are a bit of a problem too. They may take certain already weak minds down a bad path. A lot of these guys played them heavily including the kid in Sandy Hook, the guy in Aurora, the guy in Tucson, and the guy in Norway.
Two interesting points in this thread I'd like to call attention back to:
Fantastic point and something I was pondering today. Whether it's this married couple, a couple of teenagers shooting up their high school, or a grad student attacking a movie theater, something has caused these people to feel as though the system no longer works for them - so much so they choose to end their lives and make a gross statement by ending the lives of as many others as possible.
What causes this? The psychology behind this hopelessness/disenfranchisement/call-it-what-you-will is one of the things that needs to be explored. There are dozens of groups looking to transmit their ridiculous message though the actions of the angry and hopeless. As a society, it's part of our social contract to keep as many people from winding up angry and hopeless, primarily because that's what makes us a great society, but also because we'll benefit from more mass shootings, suicides, etc...
Continuing from above, this is a good point. Helping rather than incarcerating those in need. Not sure it'll really solve the shooting problem, but certainly something we've been remiss in addressing as a society. The national infrastructure is currently such that those with mental issues get ignored and those with marginal criminal issues warrant an undue focus from law enforcement and later create an undue tax burden during their undue incarceration, at the end of which they're likely to be truly criminalized or sufficiently mentally disturbed.
Fantastic point and something I was pondering today. Whether it's this married couple, a couple of teenagers shooting up their high school, or a grad student attacking a movie theater, something has caused these people to feel as though the system no longer works for them - so much so they choose to end their lives and make a gross statement by ending the lives of as many others as possible.
What causes this? The psychology behind this hopelessness/disenfranchisement/call-it-what-you-will is one of the things that needs to be explored. There are dozens of groups looking to transmit their ridiculous message though the actions of the angry and hopeless. As a society, it's part of our social contract to keep as many people from winding up angry and hopeless, primarily because that's what makes us a great society, but also because we'll benefit from more mass shootings, suicides, etc...
Continuing from above, this is a good point. Helping rather than incarcerating those in need. Not sure it'll really solve the shooting problem, but certainly something we've been remiss in addressing as a society. The national infrastructure is currently such that those with mental issues get ignored and those with marginal criminal issues warrant an undue focus from law enforcement and later create an undue tax burden during their undue incarceration, at the end of which they're likely to be truly criminalized or sufficiently mentally disturbed.
There are many examples throughout history that show evil people will find a way to do evil things, whether it's with guns, knives, axes, frozen turkeys, or other people's fallibility. How do we eliminate evil and the desire to do harm to others through either physical or emotional means?
I'm not so naive to believe we can eliminate evil. But given the choice I'd rather be attacked with a frozen turkey than a Smith & Wesson M&P 15.
Exactly.
The goal is to minimize the factors that lead to evil (discussed throughout this thread), but because it's impossible to totally eliminate it, the other goal is to limit the capabilities of evil. That means reduced access to potent weapons.
The old saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Perhaps, but guns help people do it a hell of a lot more efficiently than an ax or knife.
I do like that this thread focuses on the people component of the equation. Threads that focus on the weapon component get shutdown more than florida's offense.
Oh, come on...cry me a river. Syed Farook had a college degree, government job, a wife, a new baby, and a roof over his head. His wife was able to emigrate legally from a third world country to Southern California. Wtf makes them disenfranchised?
I refuse to accept that society bears any responsibility for this couple's actions.
wealth and education do not preclude one from feeling as though the system has somehow failed and wanting to put on a gross display to convey that message to society.
James Holmes was highly educated. Graduated UC-Riverside with Highest Honors in Neurobiology. Was a Ph.D. candidate at Colorado who was awarded a $20,000+ research grant from the NIH - none of this stopped him from plotting a terrorist attack on a movie theater. Something in this world took his hope away and drove him crazy enough to do it.
I'll ask you, why on earth would a previously normal guy suddenly and/or gradually wind up with a mindset wherein, along with his wife, attempting to kill 28 people seemed like solid plan of action? Was he a 'radical' or 'crazy' or 'a loner' all along? I think not, whatever bit of latent resentment to the world he hosted was catalyzed by something. You could suppose some 'radical' got in his ear and using propaganda convinced him of some grand battle, but at the point that he was susceptible to such nonsense, something else had already triggered that susceptibility. Normal people don't just hear some crazy propaganda and say "hmm, yea that sounds right, i'll gear up and shoot up the company mixer next month".
His employer probably moved his office down to the basement. Maybe they finally fixed the payroll glitch. You never know what could finally set someone off - even something as simple as finding the right stapler can have a huge impact on office morale.
What about a Ryder truck and some 55 gallon drums? Or propane tanks? Or some lead pipes?
James Holmes was not disenfranchised. The system didn't fail him. I believe he's mentally ill.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not disenfranchised. The system didn't fail them. I believe Harris was an evil guy and Klebold a follower.
The guy that shot up Planned Parenthood was nuts and I think pushed over the edge by some incendiary rhetoric from pro-life fringe types and a crazy belief that he was doing good by killing.
I would not be surprised to find that this guy in California was influenced by some radical acquaintances to believe that his religion commanded him to do this, and his wife followed his lead.
He also threatened to put strychnine in the resort's guacamole. Man was he disgruntled!a dubious character if there ever was one.
Yep, could kill me that way. Given the choice I think I'd rather the nutters have to work that hard to try to kill me instead of going to the local Walmart or craigslist and buying some military grade firepower. But that's just me - I'm willing to put it to a vote.
Agreed - Craigslist should only be used for firewood and krab meat.
That's nice, but I don't trust internet polls. How about a vote in a general election?
How would it make you feel if there was a general election over it, and strict gun control lost? Voters aren't always on the side of what's "right" or what makes the most sense. See Prop 8 from a few years ago. That's the danger of letting people vote directly on important issues.
To follow on to this - I'm really focusing on the people, rather than the issue of guns. I think if you put the people - all of the people - in a position to vote directly on these things, with results that stick, that we'd find that a vote to outlaw all of Islam in the US would have a better chance of passing than a vote to ban certain types of guns.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by "strict gun control". But if a plan I supported lost I'm sure I would be disappointed. Problem is that we'll never get that chance as our representatives have been bought and paid for by the gun lobby. Too much money to take the risk that change might happen.
Still, while there are a lot of guns being purchased they are being bought by fewer people.
I understand that and I appreciate that's why we have a representative democracy. However it's fairly clear that on this issue our "representation" has been bought by a small but powerful lobbying group. What is the answer to that?
Let's get this away from a gun debate and back to Russ' original premise. Gun threads never end well.
I think you're oversimplifying here.
Holmes, sane enough to apply for and get into grad school and then a ph.d. program, until something flipped in him and make him crazy.
Harris / Klebold - evil and follower is just a gross oversimplification. what made them this way? what led to this? that's what this thread is about.
Planned Parenthood guy - started out off kilter and exposed to radical rhetoric, went on a rampage
San Bernadino - no one knows much yet, but likely started off somewhere between normal and off kilter. quite a bit of family drama (saw father threaten his own suicide in 2014), likely exposed to radical rhetoric, went on a rampage
None of these folks were murderously crazy from day one. A series of events led them to it.
Well, not like our elected officials are doing a much better job of it. I think the right piece of legislation with some effective communication could get the job done.
Congress could put something to vote tomorrow but we all know they don't give a rats ass. They'll use this for their purpose, whether it be to defend guns, point fingers at Muslims, or pay false lip service to their desire to beef up mental healthcare.
There's no answer. That's the reality, I'm afraid. The only people powerful enough to reform the system are the ones that benefit the most from it. They're never going to change that. The rest of us are left to either accept it, or to become disenfranchised. Less and less people seem willing to "sit back and enjoy it".
I agree - that's why I tried to make it more of a "voting" or "tendency of people" issue. But you're right.
I think a large part of the problem lies with what would be considered "effective communication" nowadays. Unless it's a catchy 10-second video of someone saying something really outlandish, I think the vast majority of people completely tune out. It doesn't even have to be true (or even believable!) any more - just something quick and shocking and people will latch on to it. Even more effective (and trustworthy!) if it's said by a Kardashian.
Hmmm...so you think we are just going to have to come to terms with daily mass shootings? I suppose we already have as we pretty much only heard about 4-5 off the 355 so far this year.
You don't think we'll have an Australia event? I guess we did with Sandy Hook but again, no one seemed to care enough to do jack squat.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps as Americans we've decided it's just an acceptable price for our "lifestyle".
I am oversimplifying, posting from an iPhone...
None of what you posted leads me to believe any of them were disenfranchised. Some people are just susceptible to internal urges or external influences, and some are just bad people. I'm fine with trying to understand why, as long as we aren't using it as an excuse.
As terrible and cynical and depressing as it sounds, I think that about sums up where we are now. I think more and more people are going to feel empowered to try to commit large acts of violence, and I think that the more it happens, the less everyone will pay attention to it. I think it's a desensitization that's bound to occur. Maybe there's a slight "bump" in awareness and Twitter prayers when something really noteworthy happens (like the Paris attacks), but other than that, people get more and more used to it until it becomes just another part of the background noise of our lives.
I saw that there are now people who have been through more than one of these events and they are now "veterans" of domestic terrorism/mass shootings. Once that happens, then the "novelty" has worn off and it's destined to fall out of the news cycle faster, or not even be reported - except maybe locally.
I'm all for more restrictions on gun ownership, but reject the idea this is the sole reason for this epidemic. At the same time I really don't care if criminals are shooting each other, except when innocents are caught in the crossfire.
I agree with you, it's not the reason. There is something in our culture that makes us prone to these violent outbursts. Perhaps it goes all the way back to how we were founded. Maybe it's the way we send our kids off on their own when they hit 17-18 and don't have big extended families like most the world. Don't know. But I do know we make it too easy for those that go off the rails to hurt others.
I used the term 'disenfranchised' b/c it was used by the poster who I quoted.
Better stated, i think disenfranchisement is one of several reasons one would be led to believe the system has failed. I should have made that more clear earlier.
Holmes might not have been disenfranchised, but something led him to be angry enough with society that he decided to attack a theater.
Each of these shooters has their own 'button' or 'buttons' that got pushed, whether suddenly or gradually, by radical rhetoric or the flawed reasoning of their own mind.
I still don't think the system failed Farook, but I agree 100% with your last two paragraphs.
Out of 330,000,000 people roughly 14,000 people die from gun violence a year, so 00.0042%. I would hardly qualify this as an epidemic.
