Elliot Rodger - California killing spree - all the issues

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

Cosmo said:

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.

unsung said:

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.

Who said there was an extensive list? We are envisioning a scenario that is very likely to play out given the wild wild west culture the gun nuts are cultivating.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/29/florida-6-year-old-kills-grandfather-with-ak-47-left-unattended-by-boys-uncle-at-family-picnic/

Here is a good example of this culture...moron leaves assault rifle at family picnic

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/29/nevada-man-claims-stand-your-ground-after-shooting-couple-sleeping-at-his-vacant-property/

Moron kills sleeping man and almost kills woman (yes they were trespassing....perhaps a call to the police could have occurred?)

http://fox59.com/2014/05/27/woman-shot-after-gun-goes-off-inside-indiana-walmart-store/

Moron drops loaded weapon in Walmart...shoots woman who was pushing son in cart...what if that bullet had hit the boy in the head?

This is the gun culture in the USA

'Moron'

A beautiful word. So accurately describes so many people in one fluid word that just rolls off the tongue.

Different stress and accentuations make the term even more effective: in particular... I like really emphasizing the 'm' as you utter the word. It builds for a nice release and when the term is finally expressed following through... the result is a description that seems impossible to deny.

As in, "What a mmmmmoron!"

Try it some time. The emphasis takes away the need to throw foul language as an adjective to most accurately describe the level of moron one is relating.

Instead of, "What a fucking moron!" A person can say, "What a mmmmmoron!" and the effect is the same for accurately detailing the degree of said moron.

Ah, the name calling.

Argument lost. Attention lost. Points rendered invalid.

Have a good day.

JonnyPistachio said:

Gern Blansten said:

This is the gun culture in the USA

The only thing I ever have to add to these threads is that I think that (sadly), its too late. The gun culture in the USA is just going to get worse. I believe this because I think we really are getting desensitized to these mass shootings, and many of us who want better laws or more accurate registration, or better physiological evaluations are learning that this might never happen. So some folks like me, who are concerned about how to defend against the possibility of mass shooting are just going to go get guns themselves, and join the spiraling out of control gun culture of the US. (i'm still not getting a gun though, but the point is, that many like me, are).

It's going to get worse but I think that will be the catalyst to big reforms...

I believe it will get to the point where there is little resistance. Opinion polls reflect that the great majority of the population want stricter gun control.

PJ_Soul said:

Cosmo said:

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.

Are you a therapist or psychiatrist and treating me? I'm not suggesting that just anyone can report such things. But I think that a mental health professional who is worried enough to contact the police should be assumed to be qualified here. I seriously doubt that therapists and psychiatrists make this kind of call very often at all. I think there are enough resources to respond to these kinds of cases, since I have no reason to think they are very common. It's a big deal with this kind of call is made IMO.

...
In California, a patient being treated by a therapist is protected by the law that holds the therapist criminally responsible for notifying authorities, even if he/she believes the patient is a risk. That is probably why the therapist notified the mother and advised her to read the E-Mail. That way, the mother can notify the police and the therapist maintains the patient's confidentiality. She never told the mother the content of the message, just informed her that she needed to read it, immediately.
And i agree, i wish there was a method to alert authorities as soon as possible. I mean, i completely understand doctor/patient confidentiality because without it, the patient will not confide in his/her true feelings. It would be nice to have both, full confidentiality and the ability to alert law enforcement... but, you cannot have both because they are in direct conflict of each other.
I do not see the police being negligent. They were told by the mother, back in April, to check up on Elliot Rodger... which they did. He was fine and did not commit suicide and said things were okay. Police are not trainned mental health professionals.
To me, I believe it would be worse to grant powers of search and seizure without a warrant. Because, like I said, if they took action in response to a phone call, under the presumption that the caller was indeed, his mother... would they have taken my call if I claimed to be his father?

Godfather. said:

Cosmo said:

unsung said:

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.

...
Did anyone say there were 'extensive lists'? I never said there were.
What i had illustrated was a scenario. How would you identify the correct shooter if you rolled up on a scene where a mass shooting is taking place?
...
I just want you to explain to me on how putting more bullets into the air will make people safer in cases where a mass shooting occurs... and note, most occur without prior warning.
I'm not taking about stopping a kid from holding up a 7-11... i'm talking about a guy, walking into a mall, pulling out a 9mm and firing it into the crowd. If you are the only one with a gun and you fire upon the shooter... what stops someone else with a gun thinking you are the shooter and fires upon you? And can you guarantee that your shots will find its mark and not stray and take out a pregnant mother of 3 in the background? Can you guarantee that the second good guy with a gun will not fire stray shots?

there is always an excuse not to have or use something ...anything and there will always be people that are willing to create an argument aginst it...come to think of it this whole issue is a people problem not a gun problem, defective people not defective guns.

Godfather.

And there will always be defective people and your not going to be able to identify them all.

Gern Blansten said:

Bump this picture for good times!

i_lov_it said:

Gern Blansten said:

JonnyPistachio said:

Gern Blansten said:

This is the gun culture in the USA

The only thing I ever have to add to these threads is that I think that (sadly), its too late. The gun culture in the USA is just going to get worse. I believe this because I think we really are getting desensitized to these mass shootings, and many of us who want better laws or more accurate registration, or better physiological evaluations are learning that this might never happen. So some folks like me, who are concerned about how to defend against the possibility of mass shooting are just going to go get guns themselves, and join the spiraling out of control gun culture of the US. (i'm still not getting a gun though, but the point is, that many like me, are).

It's going to get worse but I think that will be the catalyst to big reforms...

I believe it will get to the point where there is little resistance. Opinion polls reflect that the great majority of the population want stricter gun control.

People have to relise that it should be a Privilege not a Right...and I am all for Stricter Gun Control.

Ok, I'll play. What do you do with the millions of firearms already in possession?

Ok, what if I didn't want to participate in your three programs?

What if we don't comply?

Are you willing to turn 100M gun owners into felons? Better start building those prisons.