Elliot Rodger - California killing spree - all the issues

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I think there was nothing they could do.

Cops can't apprehend or detain someone because a therapist suggests they should.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I think there was nothing they could do.

Cops can't apprehend or detain someone because a therapist suggests they should.

I never said they should apprehend or detain him just because of what his therapist said. They just should have investigated further. They didn't have to look very hard to realize what this guy was planning to do.

That said, laws should be changed to that they CAN detain him for questioning for, say, 24 hours if his therapist says he's a danger to others. I mean, the government can apparently monitor everything we do online.... cops can't be allowed to monitor computer use of someone whose therapist says is a danger to the public? That's ridiculous.

Godfather.

Gern Blansten said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

We don't just hand out guns to anyone, he lived in California which is a anti-gunners dream.

He passed the background checks that everyone here screams for.

California's anti-gun laws also kept these victims defenseless as there are only 52 concealed carry permit holders in that county. This murderers previous statements indicated that he was avoiding attacking certain places based on whether someone legally carrying could stop him.

...
Doesn't that all goes to show that the background checks are not adequate?
...
Also... when was the last time a person with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass killing? Because I can't seem to recall one.

Exactly...

And when someone starts firing at you when you don't expect it a gun does you little good...

Reasonable people don't want to ban guns (except for assault weapons which have absolutely no place in society) they want to make purchasing guns as difficult as possible for the people that intend on misusing them.

all good points but....what about my right to own a gun ? are you saying no guns for the public ?


Godfather.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I think there was nothing they could do.

Cops can't apprehend or detain someone because a therapist suggests they should.

I never said they should apprehend or detain him just because of what his therapist said. They just should have investigated further. They didn't have to look very hard to realize what this guy was planning to do.

That said, laws should be changed to that they CAN detain him for questioning for, say, 24 hours if his therapist says he's a danger to others. I mean, the government can apparently monitor everything we do online.... cops can't be allowed to monitor computer use of someone whose therapist says is a danger to the public? That's ridiculous.

But this would be to assume there is a large enough force with the sufficient funding required to do what you suggest. I guarantee, with all the other items out there short-staffed and underfunded police forces deal with, that they would have had difficulty monitoring this situation as hindsight would have them do.

Cosmo

unsung said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

We don't just hand out guns to anyone, he lived in California which is a anti-gunners dream.

He passed the background checks that everyone here screams for.

California's anti-gun laws also kept these victims defenseless as there are only 52 concealed carry permit holders in that county. This murderers previous statements indicated that he was avoiding attacking certain places based on whether someone legally carrying could stop him.

...
Doesn't that all goes to show that the background checks are not adequate?
...
Also... when was the last time a person with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass killing? Because I can't seem to recall one.

Ccw holders usually stop crimes from becoming mass killings so I can't tell you because I don't have a crystal ball.

As far as the background checks they did work, his therapist then called the police in a panic saying he was a threat and they visited him. But they did nothing.

...
How do people carrying a concealed weapon STOP a mass shooting?
...
And if you check the facts... the e-mails were sent at 9:17 P.M. and the shooting began at 9:27. That is 10 minutes for the recipients of the emails to open them and read them. That is assuming that they read the messages as soon as they came in.
In that time, Rodger's therapist caled the mother to inform her that she needed to read the e-mail. When she did, she contacted the father and dialed 9-1-1 as they drover towards Santa Barbara. The therapist is forbidden by law to contact police regarding a patient. A counselor opened the email at 10:00 and called police minutes later, but it was too late.
So, you blame the police because they could not track down the whereabouts of a specific individual in a college community on a Friday night within the maximum of 10 minutes (if they even had 10 minutes because the mother called the father first, then dialed 9-1-1). In order for them to do something you suggest... stopping a specific individual in a matter of minutes... they would need everyone to have a GPS transponder on their body so each individula can be monitored by the police and deploy some sort of airborne response.
So... do you want a GPS transponder that police can readily identify you on your body at all times? I don't.

dignin

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I think there was nothing they could do.

Cops can't apprehend or detain someone because a therapist suggests they should.

I never said they should apprehend or detain him just because of what his therapist said. They just should have investigated further. They didn't have to look very hard to realize what this guy was planning to do.

That said, laws should be changed to that they CAN detain him for questioning for, say, 24 hours if his therapist says he's a danger to others. I mean, the government can apparently monitor everything we do online.... cops can't be allowed to monitor computer use of someone whose therapist says is a danger to the public? That's ridiculous.

But this would be to assume there is a large enough force with the sufficient funding required to do what you suggest. I guarantee, with all the other items out there short-staffed and underfunded police forces deal with, that they would have had difficulty monitoring this situation as hindsight would have them do.

Yeah, for all we know they get a lot of calls saying that someone is a threat that amounts to nothing.

Maybe they fucked up....but it doesn't see like we have enough info to lay blame on them for this one.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul said:

hedonist said:

I somewhat agree on the pharma front...I mean, which way to go?

Someone needing medication doesn't take it, catastrophic results.

Someone needing medication does take it, with side-effects that could bring catastrophic results.

Someone doesn't need medication but is prescribed (or taking) it...etc.

Someone who is simply, maybe naturally, just utterly fucked up with no emotion, no empathy.

Just don't let people who take those kinds of drugs have guns. That

unsung said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

We don't just hand out guns to anyone, he lived in California which is a anti-gunners dream.

He passed the background checks that everyone here screams for.

California's anti-gun laws also kept these victims defenseless as there are only 52 concealed carry permit holders in that county. This murderers previous statements indicated that he was avoiding attacking certain places based on whether someone legally carrying could stop him.

...
Doesn't that all goes to show that the background checks are not adequate?
...
Also... when was the last time a person with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass killing? Because I can't seem to recall one.

Ccw holders usually stop crimes from becoming mass killings so I can't tell you because I don't have a crystal ball.

As far as the background checks they did work, his therapist then called the police in a panic saying he was a threat and they visited him. But they did nothing.

Yup, the cops fucked up big time. Hopefully this event will change their procedures when responding to calls like this. I.e. do a through search of the person's residence and not take them at their word when questioned.

...
You are treading on very dangerous ground here.
That means I can call the police on you and claim to be your father and tell them that you pose a threat to yourself and others.
The police can then, go to your door and see if you are okay or not. If you say you are okay, they could still enter your home and conduct a search of the premises without a bench issued search warrant.
That is a pretty scary proposition.
...
See the timeline I posted. They had 10 minutes between the time the e-mails were sent, received and read by the therapist, who contacted the mother, who contacted the father... then, called 9-1-1.
That is asking alot of local law enforcement.

goingtoverona

in response to why can't we register and license with periodic health screenings...my guess would be money. that's a whole lot of money you're talking about to do that, but I know where you guys are coming from. how easy it is to be able to legally and continually drive a car is very, very disturbing.

oh wanted to add too, in all this gun talk, let's not forget about the three people stabbed to death. I know they don't make it to the pedestal for most of you, but they were people too.

jmuscatello

Trust me on this one, this happens all the time. Laws should be changed to make the emergency mental health hold process easier and faster, because the safety net you think is out there, is not. People in full psychosis pass these 10-20 minute police checks ALL THE TIME, this is why they need to be detained and evaluated by mental health professionals. The police COULD have had him taken him on a emergency evaluation hold. The guy convinced them he was not dangerous.

Who would fight such changes to make the hold process easier? The gun lobby, of course! They just did here in CO (rant above in thread, sorry for the re-rant). They worried that by making the hold process slightly easier, more people (being evaluated for a mental health crisis, remember) would be stopped from buying guns by NCIS instant checks - god forbid. Let's be sure people in a manic rage or psychotic episode (who still pass these police checks, I'm not kidding you) don't get held and evaluated, so they don't lose their right to buy all the guns and ammo they want and need.

dignin

goingtoverona said:

in response to why can't we register and license with periodic health screenings...my guess would be money. that's a whole lot of money you're talking about to do that, but I know where you guys are coming from. how easy it is to be able to legally and continually drive a car is very, very disturbing.

Those costs should be passed along to the gun owner. Same way you pay to have your car registered.

jmuscatello

and to clarify, the CO bill would not have even taken that right away - this was strictly for emergency holds and wouldn't have even taken away their firearms purchase rights unless a commitment by the courts eventually happened. The NRA and NRGO still fought it. How do those guys sleep at night, I mean really?

goingtoverona

@dignin
but you're driving your car out in public, interacting with other people, putting lives at risk. a person shouldn't be doing that with a gun.personally I wouldn't mind registering and licensing if we all pick up the tab, but I would vote against it if it made the gun owner pick up the tab. if it's that important to you, it shouldn't be a big deal to toss a few extra dollars that way.

and I wouldn't pay a dime for a mandatory shrink visit.

Cosmo

goingtoverona said:

in response to why can't we register and license with periodic health screenings...my guess would be money. that's a whole lot of money you're talking about to do that, but I know where you guys are coming from. how easy it is to be able to legally and continually drive a car is very, very disturbing.

oh wanted to add too, in all this gun talk, let's not forget about the three people stabbed to death. I know they don't make it to the pedestal for most of you, but they were people too.

...
I can understand the registration part... which should include the transfer of the registration between private parties.
As for the mental state evaluation... that is extremely tricky. First off, who defines mental stability? Are we willing to treat mentally ill people as potential criminals?
But, still... we should try something to keep guns out of the hands of the crazy people... the trick is to pick them out of the 400 million or so of us.
...
Also, Initial reports are that the 3 roommate were stabbed or hit with a hammer as they slept. We still don't know the timeline details, other than the first reports of shots fired at around 9:27 P.M. All we know is the roommates were murdered anytime before that time. But, we don't know if he kiled them minutes before or hours before.

goingtoverona

"who defines mental stability?"

exactly man, most would say a person who has read a bunch of books and passed a bunch of tests and got a neat piece a paper from an accredited university. but does that make it correct, or just the closest thing to correct that we know?

and yeah I don't get the private transfers, why there is no paperwork involved in that. doesn't make sense.

Cosmo

Yeah... it is extremely difficult to ensure public safety without trampling our rights. We see this with our 'War On Terror'. We can ensnare and thwart possible terrorist attacks... but, the cost is our privacy as the NSA turns it machinery inwards, towards us.
The same thing goes with the gun debate. We know there are nutcases out there that can legally obtain some fierce firepower through our loosely woven check points. and we certainly do not want to grant the police the power to search our homes based upon reports taken over the phone, do we?
...
I don't see any short to mid term solution to these very random acts of mass violence towards us other than just accepting the horror as the price we pay for our rights.

jmuscatello

goingtoverona said:

"who defines mental stability?"

exactly man, most would say a person who has read a bunch of books and passed a bunch of tests and got a neat piece a paper from an accredited university. but does that make it correct, or just the closest thing to correct that we know?

and yeah I don't get the private transfers, why there is no paperwork involved in that. doesn't make sense.

Closest thing to correct that we know. Defining who is stable enough to handle a gun is almost impossible in practice, and a person can shift between stable and unstable so many times throughout their life depending on meds and stress and life events and even aging. To me that's another reason that having gun ownership as a RIGHT in our society now is so messed up.

jmuscatello

Cosmo said:

Yeah... it is extremely difficult to ensure public safety without trampling our rights. We see this with our 'War On Terror'. We can ensnare and thwart possible terrorist attacks... but, the cost is our privacy as the NSA turns it machinery inwards, towards us.
The same thing goes with the gun debate. We know there are nutcases out there that can legally obtain some fierce firepower through our loosely woven check points. and we certainly do not want to grant the police the power to search our homes based upon reports taken over the phone, do we?
...
I don't see any short to mid term solution to these very random acts of mass violence towards us other than just accepting the horror as the price we pay for our rights.

the only way I can cope with our American gun anarchy is by doing all the research I can so that I never, EVER, cast a vote that might help elect a lawmaker with even the most remote ties to or backing by the gun lobby... it's not much, but it's something

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

@dignin
but you're driving your car out in public, interacting with other people, putting lives at risk. a person shouldn't be doing that with a gun.personally I wouldn't mind registering and licensing if we all pick up the tab, but I would vote against it if it made the gun owner pick up the tab. if it's that important to you, it shouldn't be a big deal to toss a few extra dollars that way.

and I wouldn't pay a dime for a mandatory shrink visit.

Cars have a fundamental purpose: transportation. The risks associated with them are inherent and necessary given the fact that cars are integral to our way of life.

Gun ownership is completely different from automobile ownership in that a gun's purpose is to blow holes in things- hardly a 'necessity'. It is debatable whether the inherent risks associated with gun ownership are something that should even be assumed by society.

People not interested in owning a hobby item such as a gun should not be required to subsidize the costs associated with such hobbies- that responsibility lies with the user group in its entirety.

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

Cosmo said:

Gern Blansten said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

We don't just hand out guns to anyone, he lived in California which is a anti-gunners dream.

He passed the background checks that everyone here screams for.

California's anti-gun laws also kept these victims defenseless as there are only 52 concealed carry permit holders in that county. This murderers previous statements indicated that he was avoiding attacking certain places based on whether someone legally carrying could stop him.

...
Doesn't that all goes to show that the background checks are not adequate?
...
Also... when was the last time a person with a concealed carry permit stopped a mass killing? Because I can't seem to recall one.

Exactly...

And when someone starts firing at you when you don't expect it a gun does you little good...

Reasonable people don't want to ban guns (except for assault weapons which have absolutely no place in society) they want to make purchasing guns as difficult as possible for the people that intend on misusing them.

...
The thing I don't understand... how is putting more bullets in the air... coming from different directions... with terrified people running in several directions... make us safer?
And how do we know who is the initial shooter, if there are a bunch of people shooting? Wouldn't it add to the confusion?
...
I mean, let's say I have a concealed weapon and a leagal permit to carry it. I see the initial shots and can correctly identify the shooter. I draw my weapon an fire in his direction.
Meanwhile... Mr. Gunrights, who also has a legal permit to carry a weapon, hears the shots (from both guns) and runs towards them hoping to stop the shooting. He rounds the corner and sees my... and put 3 rounds into me.
How to you tell who is the bad guy with a gun... from the good guy with a gun?

Exactly....and situations like that will happen.

Please post said extensive list where this situation has occurred. Every state has some form of concealed carry. Please show me the facts that concealed carry holders have accidentally shot bystanders.

I'm guessing you have a much greater chance at being shot by a cop.

Merkin Baller

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

goingtoverona said:

@dignin
but you're driving your car out in public, interacting with other people, putting lives at risk. a person shouldn't be doing that with a gun.personally I wouldn't mind registering and licensing if we all pick up the tab, but I would vote against it if it made the gun owner pick up the tab. if it's that important to you, it shouldn't be a big deal to toss a few extra dollars that way.

and I wouldn't pay a dime for a mandatory shrink visit.

Cars have a fundamental purpose: transportation. The risks associated with them are inherent and necessary given the fact that cars are integral to our way of life.

Gun ownership is completely different from automobile ownership in that a gun's purpose is to blow holes in things- hardly a 'necessity'. It is debatable whether the inherent risks associated with gun ownership are something that should even be assumed by society.

People not interested in owning a hobby item such as a gun should not be required to subsidize the costs associated with such hobbies- that responsibility lies with the user group in its entirety.

Yet amazingly, thanks to our Constitution, owning a gun is your 'Right' as an American, you are entitled to it under the law. Driving a car is a privilege. Go figure.

It still amazes me, to this day how the gun people freak out at the mere suggestion that we make it more difficult for people to obtain firearms. It's a political machine with way too much money behind it, and it is frigging scary.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership mind you, I also think more can be done to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them. . . . but of course, that brings us full circle back the whole 2nd amendment rights issue.

Our society has become one giant cluster f@#k.