That is some next level .... whatever he has going on (Mass shooting in Cali)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Vaktathi wrote:
I just don't see why it's always referenced in regard to gun shows.

Becuase the guys selling this way and skirting the law use Gun Shows as a gathering place. It isn't the only place it happens, but a lot goes on there.

**Blood Hawk**

djones520 wrote:

Yes, and? Do you think a guy who is intent on murdering someone is going to go through the week plus process of that when he could go to a bass pro, and just pick one up?

An established criminal isn't going to spend money on a person to person sell like that, when he can go to his back alley criminal dealer and get that gun for much cheaper. I would like to see some statistics on how many crimes are committed by weapons bought person to person that don't under-go background checks.

I never said that this would be the primary method of criminals getting guns just some asked if there is a legal way of getting a gun with no background check and the answer is yes.

**sebster**

dereksatkinson wrote:
It's actually much more simple than that.. It's how we classify murder in the states vs how the rest of the world does. It's Apples to oranges...

That's a old claim, and a rubbish one that has no relevance to the stats being debated. The reported rates use the intentional homicide figures.

And btw.. the income inequality argument is completely brain dead. The standard of living in the US is so ridiculously high compared to the rest of the world I seriously doubt people are shooting eachother over food here in the states.

Actually, the income in the US is pretty much the same as the rest of the developed world. Germany, France, UK, Denmark, Japan, Australia... the differences in average incomes are minor. Until you start looking at income distributions, where you start seeing some pretty significant variations.

And that level of poverty isn't driving someone to kill for their breakfast, but it is likely to impose greater stress on their life, increase the economic incentive towards crime, increase the likelihood of drug taking etc, all of which increase the likelihood of murder. All of which you'd learn if you went and read something about how criminologists look at this stuff, instead of just making a wild guess in your head that the relationship must be because people are killing in order to eat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Not arguing for or against your observation, but when something like Isla Vista happens, its almost always comes from the middle class.

Sure, and income inequality has no place in talking about spree killing. But spree killing is a very small portion of homicides, and the vast bulk are tied, among other things, to poverty levels.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Until you take away the political biases...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

And if you look at murder rates in the non-developed world, they're much higher. They're even significantly higher than the US. So the much lower levels of poverty in the developed world correlate with lower murder rates.

And then if you look at the developed world, you see one country with a significantly higher murder rate, and it also happens to be the one with significantly higher poverty rates - the US.

At which point this really shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.abc6.com/story/25648291/police-knew-but-didnt-view-elliot-rodgers-videos

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Law officers who visited Elliot Rodger three weeks before he killed six college students near a Santa Barbara university were aware that he had posted disturbing videos but didn't watch them, and they didn't know about his final video detailing his "Day of Retribution" until after the deadly rampage, officials said.

The disclosure in a Santa Barbara County sheriff's department statement on Thursday corrected an earlier assertion that deputies were unaware of any video when they checked on him on April 30. The statement also provided new details on the sequence of events during that pivotal visit to Rodger's apartment, a time when he was plotting the rampage ended with him apparently taking his own life.

The guns he used in the killings last Friday were stashed inside his apartment at the time, but police never searched the residence or conducted a check to determine if he owned firearms because they didn't consider him a threat.

The statement does not explain why the videos were not viewed or whether the deputies knew anything about the contents beyond a description of them being "disturbing."

The sheriff's department also revealed new details about the timeline leading up to the killings. It said Rodger uploaded his final video to YouTube detailing his "Day of Retribution" and stating his plans and reasons for the killings, at 9:17 p.m. on the day of the shootings, May 23. One minute later, he emailed a lengthy written manifesto to his mother, father and therapist that also detailed his plans and contempt for everyone he felt were responsible for his sexual frustrations and overall miserable existence.

The first gunshots were reported at 9:27 p.m. The rampage was over and Rodger dead just eight minutes later.

It was another half hour before the therapist saw the emailed manifesto and 11 more minutes until the sheriff's office was contacted at 10:11 p.m. Authorities contacted Rodger's mother and learned about the manifesto and the "Retribution" video.

Deputies wounded Rodger during two separate shootouts as he sped through the unincorporated beach community of Isla Vista, near the University of California, Santa Barbara, leaving a trail of bloodshed that ended with Rodger apparently shooting himself in the head before crashing his black BMW into a parked car. Thirteen people were injured - eight from gunshot wounds, four from being hit by his car and one who suffered a minor injury.

The timing indicates that Rodger stabbed to death three people in the apartment sometime earlier - his two roommates and a third man who might have been another roommate or a visitor at the time of the attack.

Rodger wrote in the manifesto about the April 30 visit by the deputies and said it prompted him to remove most of his videos from YouTube. He re-posted at least some of them in the week leading up to the killings. He wrote that the deputies asked him if he had suicidal thoughts, but "I tactfully told them that it was all a misunderstanding and they finally left. If they had demanded to search my room that would have ended everything."

According to the statement from the sheriff's office, four deputies, a police officer and a dispatcher in training were sent to Rodger's apartment after being informed by the county's mental health hotline that Rodger's therapist and mother were concerned about videos he posted online.

The visit lasted about 10 minutes, during which officers found him shy and polite. The deputies questioned him about the videos. Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially and the videos were "merely a way of expressing himself."

Like many other states, California has a law intended to identify and confine dangerously unstable people before they can do harm. It allows authorities to hold people in a mental hospital for up to 72 hours for observation.

Because the deputies concluded Rodger was not a threat to himself or others, they never viewed the videos, searched his apartment or conducted a check to determine if he owned firearms, the statement said.

That sequence of events is different from a statement Sunday from spokeswoman Kelly Hoover, who said "the sheriff's office was not aware of any videos until after the shooting rampage occurred."

In a typical mental-health check, only two deputies would be dispatched. But deputies who were familiar with Rodger as a victim in a January petty theft case were in the area and also decided to go to his apartment.

Hoover did not respond immediately to an email seeking more information on why the deputies didn't watch the videos, the content of the videos and what specific information was relayed from the mother that prompted the check at his apartment.

Rick Wall, a retired Los Angeles police captain who created the agency's procedures for responding to people with mental problems, said that law enforcement officers need to look at all the available evidence when conducting investigations. "Not that the final conclusion that they made on that day would have been any different, but something could have changed," he said.

The visit with Rodger was brief, but Wall said the amount of time they spent talking to his mother was critical in determining why she was concerned about him, while gathering details of his medical history and past behavior. That information isn't known.

"That's going to be the telling piece and where you're going to get the breakdown on the guy's story," Wall said. "Talking to somebody for 10 minutes, you may or may not get the ability to conduct a proper evaluation."

Rodger's parents issued a statement Thursday through family friend Simon Astaire, saying they were "crying out in pain" for the victims and their families.

"The feeling of knowing that it was our son's actions that caused this tragedy can only be described as hell on earth," the statement said. "It is now our responsibility to do everything we can to help avoid this happening to any other family - not only to avoid any more innocence destroyed, but also to identify and deal with the mental issues that drove our son to do what he did."

So the police officers didn't watch the videos to determine if he was dangerous or not. I bet they're glad for the following;

845. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide
police protection service or, if police protection service is
provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection
service.
…

846. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to
retain an arrested person in custody.

855.6. Except for an examination or diagnosis for the purpose of
treatment, neither a public entity nor a public employee acting
within the scope of his employment is liable for injury caused by the
failure to make a physical or mental examination, or to make an
adequate physical or mental examination, of any person for the
purpose of determining whether such person has a disease or physical
or mental condition that would constitute a hazard to the health or
safety of himself or others.

**Frazzled**

I'm not blaming the cops who were doing a sight visit. Cops are used to nutjobs who rant and rave (and are drunk/high) and could be a visible threat to them and others.

If you want a better assessment of the situation, you have to bring in people more skilled in that area. Thats not the job of the local sheriff. Someone should have been there with him to check it out.

Our mental health structure in this country is...pardon the pun...insane.

**Dreadclaw69**

The mental health issue is something that needs addressed. Sadly for many people in public office it is just not sexy, or scary, enough to be used as a platform.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The mental health issue is something that needs addressed. Sadly for many people in public office it is just not sexy, or scary, enough to be used as a platform.

And by that same vein, how exactly do you "address" it?

Do you advocate for people with health issues to be able to be locked up just because someone thinks they might be a danger? You're getting into the realm of PreCrime there, and that's a dangerous road to travel down.

**Frazzled**

Yes. If multiple doctors affiant that they are a danger to themselves or others, with recourse to proper hearing methodology.

Duh

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

Kanluwen wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The mental health issue is something that needs addressed. Sadly for many people in public office it is just not sexy, or scary, enough to be used as a platform.

And by that same vein, how exactly do you "address" it?

Do you advocate for people with health issues to be able to be locked up just because someone thinks they might be a danger? You're getting into the realm of PreCrime there, and that's a dangerous road to travel down.

More funding for community resources and an investigation in to the link of anti-depressants and mass shootings. I'm not someone who believes you can stop 100% of crimes but I believe that getting more funding to the mentally ill would do a greater service to lowering crime than adding more restrictions to firearms.

Although this in itself can be difficult, because even if the resources are there there is still the social stigma as well as people not knowing they have a problem. So tack on mental health awareness on to the community funding.

**Peregrine**

Vaktathi wrote:
Right, but it's not specific to gun shows, it's private party transfers in general, gun shows in certain states simply happen to be one place where this occurs, as opposed to it being unique or primarily related to them. I'll fully admit it's a loophole, I just don't see why it's always referenced in regard to gun shows.

Because gun shows are where the loophole is abused the most. The law makes sense in some cases, if you're selling a gun to a friend then it's probably not practical to deal with all the paperwork (and let's be honest, even if it was required most people would probably just ignore it anyway), but that's not a big deal because it's a one-time thing that isn't advertised to every random person who wants to buy a gun. At gun shows you have an event that is effectively operating as a business, but the loophole allows them to pretend that it's just a bunch of private individuals selling to their friends that purely by coincidence happen to be in the same place.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
And by that same vein, how exactly do you "address" it?

More funding for mental health services
Better access to mental health services (scholarships/loan forgiveness/tax brakes for practitioners)
More education on mental health
Reduce the stigma of mental health to encourage people to seek therapy
Less reliance on medication as a first course of treatment

Kanluwen wrote:
Do you advocate for people with health issues to be able to be locked up just because someone thinks they might be a danger? You're getting into the realm of PreCrime there, and that's a dangerous road to travel down.

That someone would be a trained mental health professional, and that ability (to have someone detained who is a risk to themselves or others) is something that they already possess.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And by that same vein, how exactly do you "address" it?

More funding for mental health services
Better access to mental health services (scholarships/loan forgiveness/tax brakes for practitioners)
More education on mental health
Reduce the stigma of mental health to encourage people to seek therapy
Less reliance on medication as a first course of treatment

Kanluwen wrote:
Do you advocate for people with health issues to be able to be locked up just because someone thinks they might be a danger? You're getting into the realm of PreCrime there, and that's a dangerous road to travel down.

That someone would be a trained mental health professional, and that ability (to have someone detained who is a risk to themselves or others) is something that they already possess.

And none of those are real answers that actually address the question.

How do you address mental illness when it comes to stopping incidents like this?
Mental health services can only do so much when people are not required to be screened. So are we going to make mental health screenings a mandatory thing?
Medication isn't as relied upon as you think, by the by. It is certainly overprescribed, but that's not the same as it being "a first course of treatment"--and to be completely blunt, it varies wildly depending upon the institution in question. Some of the private facilities certainly rely upon medicating their 'tenants', but when you get into people who are out in the world at large...they might have a prescription on file but there is no guarantee they are actually taking their medication. That opens up another can of worms: Are you able to forcibly medicate someone in the name of public safety?

In this particular case you have a perfect storm of circumstances: A functional sociopath who is legally recognized as an adult, so the parents cannot forcibly commit him despite having concerns and the therapists having concerns as well.
Why more was not made of the therapists who were purportedly treating Rodgers is something to look into, but it would not be surprising at all to find out that therapists tend to err on the side of caution and as such LEOs are having to respond to a large number of these kinds of concerns from therapists.

**motyak**

Not sure if it's been brought up, but in regards to his ASD diagnosis, people sometimes receive those although they are more likely to have a schizoid disorder of some kind. There isn't anywhere near the support for people with the latter, and the stigma is much more unforgiving, which can lead to some practitioners not considering the alternative diagnosis of a schizoid disorder, because then the patient won't receive anywhere near the support when they are in school/etc as they would with an ASD disorder. And since the symptoms share some similarities, it can just be an honest mistake as well.

I know we've moved on from the whole psych thing a bit, but I just thought I'd throw that in, in case someone found it interesting.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
And none of those are real answers that actually address the question.

How do you address mental illness when it comes to stopping incidents like this?

I would have thought that it was patiently obvious that better access to psychiatrists, and better education on mental health would have given the LEOs more tools when it came to dealing with this individual. More education would have enabled them to better determine that a psychiatrist was needed to be involved at a much earlier stage when they spoke with him, and better access to a mental health expect would have helped facilitate this. At this point the psychiatrist would have also known about the videos that the LEOs did not pass along and this may have lead to the attacks being prevented.

Kanluwen wrote:
Mental health services can only do so much when people are not required to be screened. So are we going to make mental health screenings a mandatory thing?
Medication isn't as relied upon as you think, by the by. It is certainly overprescribed, but that's not the same as it being "a first course of treatment"--and to be completely blunt, it varies wildly depending upon the institution in question. Some of the private facilities certainly rely upon medicating their 'tenants', but when you get into people who are out in the world at large...they might have a prescription on file but there is no guarantee they are actually taking their medication. That opens up another can of worms: Are you able to forcibly medicate someone in the name of public safety

No one mentioned anything about mental health screenings being mandatory. So we can drop that discussion at this juncture.
There is lots of evidence that other people who have committed mass killings have been on medication that can also have a side effect of causing aggression and suicidal thoughts - the Columbine shooters, the Navy Yard shooter, Colorado Theater Shooter, Newtown Shooter, Red Lake Shooter, shooting in West Paducah, and many others besides that do not have the 3+ deaths to be deemed mass shootings.

Kanluwen wrote:
In this particular case you have a perfect storm of circumstances: A functional sociopath who is legally recognized as an adult, so the parents cannot forcibly commit him despite having concerns and the therapists having concerns as well.
Why more was not made of the therapists who were purportedly treating Rodgers is something to look into, but it would not be surprising at all to find out that therapists tend to err on the side of caution and as such LEOs are having to respond to a large number of these kinds of concerns from therapists.

Legally recognized as an adult or not he may still be involuntarily committed. I the relevant statute is 5150;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)

CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 5150, second paragraph, "... an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled."

Had the LEOs involved a psychiatrist at an early stage, or if the family had contacted a psychiatrist directly, and provided the videos for evaluation then that may have lead to;
a) His being detained for 72 hours
b) His abode being searched, the firearms being discovered, and him forfeiting his right to own such items for 5 years.
At the very least it would have reduced the death toll 50%

**AlmightyWalrus**

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The mental health issue is something that needs addressed. Sadly for many people in public office it is just not sexy, or scary, enough to be used as a platform.

And by that same vein, how exactly do you "address" it?

Do you advocate for people with health issues to be able to be locked up just because someone thinks they might be a danger? You're getting into the realm of PreCrime there, and that's a dangerous road to travel down.

More funding for community resources and an investigation in to the link of anti-depressants and mass shootings.

I'm a bit confused here. Presumably these people are getting anti-depressants because they've got a medical condition requiring them, yes? If so, why are we presuming that it's the anti-depressants when the more logical step would be to assume that it's because they've got mental issues in the first place? As in, it's not that anti-depressants make people go on spree shootings, it's that the people who go on spree shootings tend to do it because they have issues that are treated with anti-depressants.

**Ensis Ferrae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I'm a bit confused here. Presumably these people are getting anti-depressants because they've got a medical condition requiring them, yes? If so, why are we presuming that it's the anti-depressants when the more logical step would be to assume that it's because they've got mental issues in the first place? As in, it's not that anti-depressants make people go on spree shootings, it's that the people who go on spree shootings tend to do it because they have issues that are treated with anti-depressants.

I think that it's really a bit of both... See, we know that most MH professionals are not just handing out Zoloft like candy (unless they're getting a kick back from the pharmaceutical company), so it would be fairly obvious that a person being treated would have issues. Combine this with, as has been stated earlier in the thread, that different SSRIs (psychotropic drugs) don't always react in the predictable manner that say, Tylenol does. Because these drugs actively mess with the brain, the side-effects become a bit more prevalent, and they also seem to become more severe in some cases.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. Presumably these people are getting anti-depressants because they've got a medical condition requiring them, yes? If so, why are we presuming that it's the anti-depressants when the more logical step would be to assume that it's because they've got mental issues in the first place?

The whole point of carrying out research is to get to the bottom of this. Why is this so hard to understand?

There is a correlation between mass shootings, and use of anti-depressants and similar drugs. Research is needed to determine whether that correlation is simply coincidental, or whether there is causation behind it. We need to know whether the use of anti-depressants and other drugs contribute to violent behavior in certain individuals.

As in, it's not that anti-depressants make people go on spree shootings, it's that the people who go on spree shootings tend to do it because they have issues that are treated with anti-depressants.

We don't know that.

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
And none of those are real answers that actually address the question.

How do you address mental illness when it comes to stopping incidents like this?

I would have thought that it was patiently obvious that better access to psychiatrists, and better education on mental health would have given the LEOs more tools when it came to dealing with this individual. More education would have enabled them to better determine that a psychiatrist was needed to be involved at a much earlier stage when they spoke with him, and better access to a mental health expect would have helped facilitate this. At this point the psychiatrist would have also known about the videos that the LEOs did not pass along and this may have lead to the attacks being prevented.

"Patently obvious", not "patiently obvious".

LEOs are actually better educated on mental health than you think. Also you're making an assumption about "the psychiatrist would have also known about the videos".

Kanluwen wrote:
Mental health services can only do so much when people are not required to be screened. So are we going to make mental health screenings a mandatory thing?
Medication isn't as relied upon as you think, by the by. It is certainly overprescribed, but that's not the same as it being "a first course of treatment"--and to be completely blunt, it varies wildly depending upon the institution in question. Some of the private facilities certainly rely upon medicating their 'tenants', but when you get into people who are out in the world at large...they might have a prescription on file but there is no guarantee they are actually taking their medication. That opens up another can of worms: Are you able to forcibly medicate someone in the name of public safety

No one mentioned anything about mental health screenings being mandatory. So we can drop that discussion at this juncture.
There is lots of evidence that other people who have committed mass killings have been on medication that can also have a side effect of causing aggression and suicidal thoughts - the Columbine shooters, the Navy Yard shooter, Colorado Theater Shooter, Newtown Shooter, Red Lake Shooter, shooting in West Paducah, and many others besides that do not have the 3+ deaths to be deemed mass shootings.

Oh sure it's "the medication".

Kanluwen wrote:
In this particular case you have a perfect storm of circumstances: A functional sociopath who is legally recognized as an adult, so the parents cannot forcibly commit him despite having concerns and the therapists having concerns as well.
Why more was not made of the therapists who were purportedly treating Rodgers is something to look into, but it would not be surprising at all to find out that therapists tend to err on the side of caution and as such LEOs are having to respond to a large number of these kinds of concerns from therapists.

Legally recognized as an adult or not he may still be involuntarily committed. I the relevant statute is 5150;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold)

CALIFORNIA WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 5150, second paragraph, "... an application in writing stating the circumstances under which the person's condition was called to the attention of the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person, and stating that the officer, member of the attending staff, or professional person has probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled."

Had the LEOs involved a psychiatrist at an early stage, or if the family had contacted a psychiatrist directly, and provided the videos for evaluation then that may have lead to;
a) His being detained for 72 hours
b) His abode being searched, the firearms being discovered, and him forfeiting his right to own such items for 5 years.
At the very least it would have reduced the death toll 50%

A PSYCHIATRIST IS WHY LEOS WERE INVOLVED.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. Presumably these people are getting anti-depressants because they've got a medical condition requiring them, yes? If so, why are we presuming that it's the anti-depressants when the more logical step would be to assume that it's because they've got mental issues in the first place?

The whole point of carrying out research is to get to the bottom of this. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's hard to understand because people are jumping straight to the conclusion that it's the drugs doing it, when a much simpler explanation is that the people who do this have issues to start with. I'm fine with looking at the drugs to make sure it's not an issue with the medication, but it seems as if though people are jumping onto the drugs as the most obvious cause.

Other than the correlation, what reason do we have to blame the medication? If we spent millions of dollars investigating every correlation just because it exists, we'd never get anything done and we'd be broke. Is there any suspicions beyond what appears to be a knee-jerk "those darn psychiatrists"?

**-Shrike-**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm a bit confused here. Presumably these people are getting anti-depressants because they've got a medical condition requiring them, yes? If so, why are we presuming that it's the anti-depressants when the more logical step would be to assume that it's because they've got mental issues in the first place?

The whole point of carrying out research is to get to the bottom of this. Why is this so hard to understand?

It's hard to understand because people are jumping straight to the conclusion that it's the drugs doing it, when a much simpler explanation is that the people who do this have issues to start with. I'm fine with looking at the drugs to make sure it's not an issue with the medication, but it seems as if though people are jumping onto the drugs as the most obvious cause.

Other than the correlation, what reason do we have to blame the medication? If we spent millions of dollars investigating every correlation just because it exists, we'd never get anything done and we'd be broke. Is there any suspicions beyond what appears to be a knee-jerk "those darn psychiatrists"?

I'd say that the main problem is trying to prove any causation. If most spree killers are mentally ill, then most spree killers will be on medication. However, I don't believe there are any killers who aren't mentally ill, but still take the medication. So essentially, even if the medication causes psychotic tendencies in a minority of cases, it's going to be hard to prove that this is the reason for the killings as opposed to the mental illness (that the medication is prescribed for).

The only way we'd be able to tell is by giving a bunch of normal people some serious medication; however, that's quite unlikely to happen.

EDIT: Post 600.

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
"Patently obvious", not "patiently obvious".

Oh goody, you're correcting spelling and grammar now. This is shaping up to bea constructive exchange.

Kanluwen wrote:
LEOs are actually better educated on mental health than you think. Also you're making an assumption about "the psychiatrist would have also known about the videos".

Starting your statement with a sweeping assumption I see, then criticizing me for making an assumption. My assumption about the psychiatrist knowing about the videos stems from the fact that the police knew about them. So obviously if the police were accompanied by a psychiatrist then it stands to reason the psychiatrist would also know about the videos. In any event LEOs are not trained in mental health to the same level as a psychiatrist.

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh sure it's "the medication".

That's it? That's your rebuttal? You are given evidence of correlation between mass shootings, mental health, and medication (which I admit, warrants further investigation) and you can only muster a pithy response

Kanluwen wrote:
A PSYCHIATRIST IS WHY LEOS WERE INVOLVED.

Fantastic, but not that isn't something I'm disputing. A psychiatrist was involved. But not under 5150. As already outlined a 5150 would have involved detention (which you stated could not happen as he was a legal adult) and a search of property which would likely have found the firearms, and also possibly the manifesto (perhaps not the final video)

**Kanluwen**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
"Patently obvious", not "patiently obvious".

Oh goody, you're correcting spelling and grammar now. This is shaping up to bea constructive exchange.

Well if I thought you would contribute anything except parroting whatever the Conservative mouthpieces are putting forward, I would be more inclined to cut you some slack. But that's not about to happen is it?

Kanluwen wrote:
LEOs are actually better educated on mental health than you think. Also you're making an assumption about "the psychiatrist would have also known about the videos".

Starting your statement with a sweeping assumption I see, then criticizing me for making an assumption. My assumption about the psychiatrist knowing about the videos stems from the fact that the police knew about them. So obviously if the police were accompanied by a psychiatrist then it stands to reason the psychiatrist would also know about the videos. In any event LEOs are not trained in mental health to the same level as a psychiatrist.

Which psychiatrist are we talking about here? The psychiatrist who actually was involved in treating Rodgers?
Because I think it's pretty safe to make a statement that if Rodgers' psychiatrist had shown up at his home with cops, then he would have stopped seeing that psychiatrist.

The police knew about the videos, but for whatever reason did not investigate them. That is something worth looking into. Did they choose not to because the home visit that two deputies performed did not raise any red flags to them? Or did they just consider it "People are stupid and post stupid crap on the Internet"?

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh sure it's "the medication".

That's it? That's your rebuttal? You are given evidence of correlation between mass shootings, mental health, and medication (which I admit, warrants further investigation) and you can only muster a pithy response

Given that you put forward earlier that "psychiatrists are overmedicating", why are these kinds of incidents not happening more often?
Pretending that the medication is the root cause is being disingenuous.

Putting it bluntly: Medication is a correlation, not a causation at this juncture. Whenever these shootings occur there are always people who leap for anything but "We can't explain why someone chose to do this but they did it".

Kanluwen wrote:
A PSYCHIATRIST IS WHY LEOS WERE INVOLVED.

Fantastic, but not that isn't something I'm disputing. A psychiatrist was involved. But not under 5150. As already outlined a 5150 would have involved detention (which you stated could not happen as he was a legal adult) and a search of property which would likely have found the firearms, and also possibly the manifesto (perhaps not the final video)

No, what I stated(if you actually bothered to read rather than trying to play your whole "Gotcha!" crap):

In this particular case you have a perfect storm of circumstances: A functional sociopath who is legally recognized as an adult, so the parents cannot forcibly commit him despite having concerns and the therapists having concerns as well.
Why more was not made of the therapists who were purportedly treating Rodgers is something to look into, but it would not be surprising at all to find out that therapists tend to err on the side of caution and as such LEOs are having to respond to a large number of these kinds of concerns from therapists.

The PARENTS could not forcibly commit him. The individuals who could have made a call for a 5150(the Sheriff's deputies) did not see anything that warranted a 5150 when they interviewed Rodgers. Why his therapist(or therapists as some articles have put forward) did not push for a 5150, I don't know.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

-Shrike- wrote:
The only way we'd be able to tell is by giving a bunch of normal people some serious medication; however, that's quite unlikely to happen.

EDIT: Post 600.

Why not? It happens all the time in voluntary medical trials. And people do sometimes die in those trials.

We know for a fact that these sorts of drugs don't literally kill people. But there is a worrying correlation of prescription anti-depressants etc to violent behavior. If the only way to determine whether or not they increase violent behavior is by carrying out medical trials on healthy volunteers and studying the effects (i.e. seeing if a healthy person prescribed with a certain drug also turns violent), then that's what needs to be done.

At the very least, we could rule these drugs out as a cause.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
-Shrike- wrote:
The only way we'd be able to tell is by giving a bunch of normal people some serious medication; however, that's quite unlikely to happen.

EDIT: Post 600.

Why not? It happens all the time in voluntary medical trials. And people do sometimes die in those trials.

We know for a fact that these sorts of drugs don't literally kill people. But there is a worrying correlation of prescription anti-depressants etc to violent behavior. If the only way to determine whether or not they increase violent behavior is by carrying out medical trials on healthy volunteers and studying the effects (i.e. seeing if a healthy person prescribed with a certain drug also turns violent), then that's what needs to be done.

At the very least, we could rule these drugs out as a cause.

Yes, the thing is though, other than the correlation, what cause do we have to suspect the drugs?

**Dreadclaw69**

Kanluwen wrote:
Well if I thought you would contribute anything except parroting whatever the Conservative mouthpieces are putting forward, I would be more inclined to cut you some slack. But that's not about to happen is it?. . .Given that you put forward earlier that "psychiatrists are overmedicating". . . No, what I stated(if you actually bothered to read rather than trying to play your whole "Gotcha!" crap)

Looks like I was right about my prediction for a constructive exchange. Good talking with you as always Kan.

**Ensis Ferrae**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Yes, the thing is though, other than the correlation, what cause do we have to suspect the drugs?

It is actually one of the known side-effects for some of the SSRIs on the market today, for starters.

**Bullockist**

I'd say the bigger problem is people stopping taking their meds when they think they are "cured". This seems to happen often and the breakdowns that result can be spectacular. This is only anecdotal though.

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Mercifully I don't, but I do remember the signs that read "No Irish. No Blacks. No dogs".

I never grew up with the anti-Irish thing, but I do remember in the late 80s and 90s the strange 'otherness' that the most recent crop of immigrants had. When the national soccer team was full of people with names ending in -ich and lots of people laughed at how little sense it made to cheer for a national team that didn't have any Australians on it. To clarify, they were natural born Australians, just from families who'd migrated from Eastern Europe instead of England and that made it hard for a lot of people to see them as Australian.

I reckon if someone said something like today they'd get punched in the face, and that's a good thing.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
I never grew up with the anti-Irish thing, but I do remember in the late 80s and 90s the strange 'otherness' that the most recent crop of immigrants had. When the national soccer team was full of people with names ending in -ich and lots of people laughed at how little sense it made to cheer for a national team that didn't have any Australians on it. To clarify, they were natural born Australians, just from families who'd migrated from Eastern Europe instead of England and that made it hard for a lot of people to see them as Australian.

I reckon if someone said something like today they'd get punched in the face, and that's a good thing.

I got to grow up during the Troubles so you got pretty familiar with a lot of things like that sadly

Even with all the crap that was going on we were never brought up to hate someone because of their religion or politics.

sebster wrote:
Honestly neither would surprise me. And while the quote is ridiculous (if honestly meant), feminism is an issue here. Feminism isn't simply about women being victims, so therefore if there are more male victims it isn't a feminist issue. Feminism is about how society views women, and when this guy spoke as he did about the sex he felt entitled to (and a large number of people on-line agreed with the sentiment) then pretty clearly there is an issue here about how society views women that is worth talking about.

The large number of people online who agreed with what he said did not come close to the the number of people telling them that they were out of line. For that I am grateful. Had it been the case that mainstream society had tried to justify the perpetrator's actions and had sympathy or his views than I would absolutely be worried. Lets not forget that the manifesto also made a point of calling out Black and Asian males who were involved with women. This person just lashed out at everyone in some manner because they didn't give him what he wanted - sex, respect, status

sebster wrote:
The legislation isn't written in the heat of the moment. It will likely be revised in that time, but the bulk of the bill will be written long before, over a long period of time by one lobbying group or another. And those groups write gun control legislation that represents a bizarre fixation with scary guns.

It may not be written in the heat of the moment, but gun control legislation is frequently written by people who typify the phrase "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", as seen with trying to ban so-called assault rifles based on physical characteristics. And no "common sense" gun control measure (bar an outright ban) is ever enough as California and New York are proving

**sebster**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The large number of people online who agreed with what he said did not come close to the the number of people telling them that they were out of line. For that I am grateful. Had it been the case that mainstream society had tried to justify the perpetrator's actions and had sympathy or his views than I would absolutely be worried.

Yep, definitely, we're talking about an absolute minority here.

It may not be written in the heat of the moment, but gun control legislation is frequently written by people who typify the phrase "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", as seen with trying to ban so-called assault rifles based on physical characteristics. And no "common sense" gun control measure (bar an outright ban) is ever enough as California and New York are proving

To clarify, I'm not defending the creators of those gun laws. If they were written in the heat of the moment there might be some excuse. That they were written over time, with consideration and debate, and were so stupid, and even years later they still can't see the problem... well that's damning.

That said, picking individual state laws as noting that they're ineffective is a bit of a nonsense. You can't ban a good in one state, maintain open and free trade with other states, and then expect that ban to achieve anything. That just denies common sense... of course the good will flow freely from where it is legal to where it is not. The only gun ban that makes any sense is one maintained across the whole of the nation.

Note that I'm not arguing for a gun ban. Just that the failure of any gun ban at the state level means nothing in terms of how it would work federally.