Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)


Recommended Posts

He was better off on the golf course. I’m happy if my taxes go towards funding a 2 year golf bonanza until he’s out of office. Live like a king. Just stfu and let the decent people on both sides who want to work together start the healing process. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

Was mentioned about a page ago. Sounds like an incel loser rather than a white nationalist

 

Misogyny has been another frequent motivation for mass murder too.  And it's something that is also radicalized in vile online communities.

 

We've got a lot of **** to reckon with as a people.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Does this mean they had no previously diagnosed mental illness?  If so that doesn't mean ****, these shooters of late are young and being overlooked.  If people can't see the correlation between mental illness and these shootings then you need to wake up.

 

The Ohio shooter killed his own sister, does that sound like someone who is mentally stable?

Edited by JSSkinz
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Does this mean they had no previously diagnosed mental illness?  If so that doesn't mean ****, these shooters of late are young and being overlooked.  If people can't see the correlation between mental illness and these shootings then you need to wake up.

 

The El Paso shooter killed his own sister, does that sound mentally stable to anyone?

 

The assumption that anyone who commits horrific crimes is mentally ill is a false one, especially if we are retroactively labeling them based on the crime they committed. 

 

People are driven to commit acts of evil for a vast number of reasons, and mental illness is usually not one of them. Unless you want to play loose with definition and label any behavior that goes against social norms as “mental illness”.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Does this mean they had no previously diagnosed mental illness?  If so that doesn't mean ****, these shooters of late are young and being overlooked.  If people can't see the correlation between mental illness and these shootings then you need to wake up.

 

The Ohio shooter killed his own sister, does that sound like someone who is mentally stable?

Using that logic then EVERY murder could be dismissed as mental illness. "The ______ shooter killed his own wife, does that sound like someone who is mentally stable?"

Hitler would no longer be responsible, by reason of insanity. Not every murderer is insane. Was Al Qaeda insane on 9/11? 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Not every murderer is insane. Was Al Qaeda insane on 9/11? 

 

 

I agree here. I'd like to add that these acts are no different then when a rogue muslim religious leader spreads concepts like Jihad, he inspires young men to believe they are serving their god when they take up arms against innocent people that they deem "evil." Trump is doing exactly that and is seen by these young men in the same regard.

 

Edited by Chachie
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The assumption that anyone who commits horrific crimes is mentally ill is a false one, especially if we are retroactively labeling them based on the crime they committed. 

 

People are driven to commit acts of evil for a vast number of reasons, and mental illness is usually not one of them. Unless you want to play loose with definition and label any behavior that goes against social norms as “mental illness”.

 

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Using that logic then EVERY murder could be dismissed as mental illness. "The ______ shooter killed his own wife, does that sound like someone who is mentally stable?"

Hitler would no longer be responsible, by reason of insanity. Not every murderer is insane. Was Al Qaeda insane on 9/11? 

 

Every shooting is its own entity so I don't disagree with either of you but when I see young men in their teens to early 20's gunning down droves of people I have to believe they have serious issues.  Having the ability to point a gun at another human being and shooting them it is not normal, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

 

Every shooting is its own entity so I don't disagree with either of you but when I see young men in their teens to early 20's gunning down droves of people I have to believe they have serious issues.  Having the ability to point a gun at another human being and shooting them it is not normal, IMO.

Sure it is, the military literally does this all the time. They take concepts like patriotism, honor, and duty to help their 18-20 year old soldiers to override their human nature to point a gun at another human being and shoot them.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Having the ability to point a gun at another human being and shooting them it is not normal, IMO.

 

We train young people to shoot and kill all the time in our police force and the military. It is perfectly normal in the right context. 

 

The El Paso shooter saw himself as fighting against an invasion of outsiders and believed the “great replacement” conspiracies that are spread nonstop by the right these days. In his warped worldview, he saw himself as being correct and the rest as enablers of a horrific crime against his people. 

 

By labeling this as mental illness, it downplays the role propaganda and hate have in driving common people into believing that their acts of violence and hate are justified and rational.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My point wasn't to argue what is.  I'm tired of that anyways.  But no one even agrees on a definition.  That's why I get frustrated when everyone yells about banning them.  It's a tag line.  (Also, there is a more appropriate thread for this).

And my point was that this isn’t the time nor the thread for it

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

By labeling this as mental illness, it downplays the role propaganda and hate have in driving common people into believing that their acts of violence are justified and rational. 

Exactly, it's WAY too easy to selectively claim mental illness for "lone wolf crazy" when it's a white guy, and to scream terrorism when the person is brown with a funny sounding name. It's this racial bias that has allowed so much of this to rise on the Right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The assumption that anyone who commits horrific crimes is mentally ill is a false one, especially if we are retroactively labeling them based on the crime they committed. 

 

People are driven to commit acts of evil for a vast number of reasons, and mental illness is usually not one of them. Unless you want to play loose with definition and label any behavior that goes against social norms as “mental illness”. 

 

I like your take, and I'd be interested to know if there is a credible consensus among mental healthcare professionals about whether profoundly antisocial worldviews and behaviors and violent radicalization constitute mental illness that should be diagnosed and actionable in something like banning them from access to firearms.

 

The whole "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental illness problem" is a ****ing feint.  A gun lobby talking point.  But perhaps there's a core truth to it.  What pro-gun people don't want you to do is to complete the logic of that position--if we've got a severe mental health pandemic causing these mass murders, then to address them we must institute more gun control.  Mandatory mental health screenings before any firearm purchase and a defined list of diagnoses and behaviors--including signs of radicalization and participation in extremist online communities--that disqualify an individual from ownership and purchase of guns.

 

That's the logical way to address the crisis if your premise is that the core issue is a mental illness pandemic.  That **** would be burdensome and nebulous as Hell.  Does anyone really want that?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we start committing people to mental institutions for racism and white nationalism, we have a gun control problem, not a mental health problem.  Full support on the involuntary commitment front though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

 

and there it is. 

 

Good time to remember that one of his supporters sent pipebombs to the ones he calls the enemy of the people

 

In 2 short years the president has gone from leader of the free world to the greatest threat to the united states

Edited by StillUnknown
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Chilling at my gate in the Denver airport and there’s a couple of dudes in “The NRA Speaks For Me” t-shirts furiously typing away at their laptops.

 

Classy.

Probably trying to find a new web-forum since 8chan got killed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tshile said:

And my point was that this isn’t the time nor the thread for it

 

I'll somewhat agree on the thread part but people were using the term without any real definition.  Totally disagree on the time part.  When is the right time?  Waiting a few days after the shootings hasn't provided any results.  Hell, now we can't even go a few days without one.  So when the hell should we debate it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I like your take, and I'd be interested to know if there is a credible consensus among mental healthcare professionals about whether profoundly antisocial worldviews and behaviors and violent radicalization constitute mental illness that should be diagnosed and actionable in something like banning them from access to firearms.

 

 

I think it will be important to make a distinction between radicalized terrorists and antisocial/unstable individuals when it comes to mass shootings. 

 

I think with mass shootings, mental illness to some degree is a factor. Adam Lanza was clearly mentally ill. James Holmes too. 

 

The El Paso shooter definitely does not come off as mentally ill. He was clearly motivated by a political ideology. The same goes for Christchurch.

 

Ultimately, I am not convinced gun control will address the issue of mass shooting frequency. More likely than not, effective gun control will can reduce the lethality of it, which is still a desirable goal. But the increasingly frequent choice being made by a variety of different young men to use firearms to commit mass carnage can still go on even if handguns are around, so I am far more interested in seeing how we can actually address the issue of why men are being driven to commit these acts and how we can specifically prevent them from gaining access to firearms. 

 

An idea that came to my mind this morning included making references from gun owners or licensed training professionals mandatory for new gun owners, with no previous history of firearm handling. It's still a half baked idea but perhaps creating an atmosphere of accountability, which involves responsible gun owners into solving this problem, is a good start. Most people are good at identifying nut jobs, especially if they have been trained to look for signs of antisocial and odd behavior.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...