- 44,202
- 2,534
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
Humanity.... Just look at what type of people walk the same ground as us. Utter filth.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
so now its up to a judge and a psychologist. you brought up the issue of legality/emotionality.
you say his mental illness led him here i disagree. narcissitic personality disorder, not disease. what disease did he suffer from that made him sick?
i dont think if this went to a jury there would be any guess as to how he would get off.
1. so you brought it up to ultimately say that a judge must decide?1. of course i brought up legality... that's the only way to answer the "fault" question...
2. when i spoke of "emotionality" I was speaking on YOUR emotions, and how adamant you are on making sure he is "blamed" whenever people bring up mental illness... you speak on a personal level instead of being objective to the situation
3. narcissistic personality disorder
ill·ness noun \ˈil-nəs\
: a condition of being unhealthy in your body or mind
: a specific condition that prevents your body or mind from working normally
if you are arguing semantics...you lose...
stop taking the issue personally and look at the definition as it pertains to medical professionals... if you want to disagree with medical terminology you should at least have a firm grasp of the foundation of the diagnosis and be able to present your argument knowingly and not as simple opposition to an idea you just don't feel comfortable with.
It's not an excuse, it's common sense because guns are made exclusively for killing. And they kill much more efficiently than other products, such as knives. We would be making a compromise by banning "everything" that can harm someone. We could ban knives, but what are we going to cut our food with? Thousands of people die in traffic every year. We could ban cars, but how would we get from A to B, for example to work without having to lose many hours of time and all the other benefits from cars? What compromise would we have to make for banning guns other than this exploitation of the word "freedom"? Of course you can't ban everything that is dangerous. You can easily kill someone with a rock and rocks are all around us so it's impossible to ban everything that can harm you. You can however ban stuff that is exclusively made for killing and allows lunatics to conveniently kill dozens of people within minutes. Unlike knives, cars and other products that can kill, the "killing ability to useful for other functions" ratio of a gun is very one dimensional.Its a scary notion... but crazy people can buy all sorts of things. Is that an excuse to just ban anything remotely dangerous, because it could possibly be used to kill? You have to accept that in a society there are going to be malicious and unstable individuals, who can and will visit harm upon others. That is a fact of life, but we can't just give up our freedoms for the sake of increasing our safety and infinitesimal amount. It's also worth noting that in this case that the killer stabbed 3 people and used his vehicle as a weapon to injure many more.
You're either trolling or...
Glad I'm not the only one who sees the trend.it's 2014... if you don't know which organ controls what you speak, do, and think then there is no point to this conversation..
straight troll status
1. so you brought it up to ultimately say that a judge must decide?
2. im being objective, i dont know what youre trying to say i'm being emotional? i have yet to call anyone any names or resort to posting gifs and "U mad doggie"
3. im not arguing semantics, a disorder is different from a disease. alzheimers, thats a disease. ocd, thats a disorder. it really comes down to the syptoms, and how treatable/longlasting they are. im not claiming to be a doctor, thats just always how i saw it. disorders generally are treatable in some form whereas diseases are more dehabilitating.
4. im not taking anything personally, this is all a discussion. ive been accused of trolling for expressing an opinion others dont agree with. you were the one who said a persons brain dictates who they are, so thats why i asked you if people that suffer from mental ******ation are just stupid. you couldnt rectify that with what you had said, so all of a sudden im not presenting my arguments knowingly.
you say his mental illness led him here i disagree. narcissitic personality disorder, not disease. what disease did he suffer from that made him sick?
Glad I'm notthe only one who sees the trend.alone, someone has come to my defense
1. so "fault" and "blame" are concepts not to be discussed in talking about this topic, because none of us are judges or psychiatrists? no philosophical/personal opinions are allowed to be discussed unless approved by a judge and a medical practictioner? if you disagree, you can say that. how is it my opinion is invalid, yet ur not a doctor either, and you know his mental illness was the cause?1. YOU brought up "fault" and "blame".... I merely stated that is determined by a psyche and judge... anything else is a philosophical/personal opinion
2.
3.i just defined illness and NPD qualifies as one.... so you for some reason start asking if its a "disease"... and focus on proving NPD is not a "disease"????? wutyou say his mental illness led him here i disagree. narcissitic personality disorder, not disease. what disease did he suffer from that made him sick?
4.
Glad I'm notthe only one who sees the trend.alone, someone has come to my defense
1. YOU brought up "fault" and "blame".... I merely stated that is determined by a psyche and judge... anything else is a philosophical/personal opinion
2.
3.
you say his mental illness led him here i disagree. narcissitic personality disorder, not disease. what disease did he suffer from that made him sick?
i just defined illness and NPD qualifies as one.... so you for some reason start asking if its a "disease"... and focus on proving NPD is not a "disease"????? wut
4.
1. so "fault" and "blame" are concepts not to be discussed in talking about this topic, because none of us are judges or psychiatrists? no philosophical/personal opinions are allowed to be discussed unless approved by a judge and a medical practictioner? if you disagree, you can say that. how is it my opinion is invalid, yet ur not a doctor either, and you know his mental illness was the cause?
2. no response just a smiley? and im being emotional?
3. the point was is it the sole factor? you decided to turn this into the DSM-IV definition of what mental illness/disorder is. i dont care whether its one or the other, my point was that it wasnt the sole reason this happened
4. another smiley instead of a response, but im the one not presenting arguments right?
when did i say he wasnt mentally ill tho, i just said it wasnt the defining reason
to me, saying hes mentally ill takes the bulk of responsibility of his actions off of his intent and places it on his illness/disorders
being mentally ill doesnt automatically make you a killer, so to say that he killed because he is mentally ill is a slap in the face of people who deal with these issues as well and dont kill
The sad part of your logic, is that to YOU; mentally ill = not responsible... so because you feel he should be responsible, you try to negate his mental illness... it's like you're working backwards...
But you did say he woke up and started blasting, you said nothing about it giving him the opportunity. The exact quote is : "something like oklahoma city takes planning, whereas this kid woke up one moring and started blasting."i didnt say he woke up one morning and started blasting, i said the gun could provide him with that opportunity.
Mental illness was most definitely a factor in this event, as it is in most scenarios like this. Sane people simply don't stab and shoot people because girls don't like them.i also never said he didnt have a mental illness, i said it wasnt the factor for this event.
PTSD and late onset mental illness was not brought up in relation to Rodgers, but rather your statement that it couldn't have been any of us because we don't all have mental issues.the point of ptsd was to say that he didnt have any traumatic event to give him ptsd so i dont see the relevance. even if they do develop, like you said the kid was seeing psychiatrists so it wasnt as if he went undetected.
I agree that this mentality exists when those who wish to do harm are the only people armed. It's the reason these incidents almost always happen in gun restricted areas.you just agreed with me that it does exist.
Guns are just a tool. It's the persons intention that poses a danger. Restricting personal firearms does not eliminate that danger. Unless we deal with the mental health aspect those people will continue to pose a danger, with or without a gun.the blame is placed on guns precisely because they are just a tool. the fact is you cant "remediate" every person on the planet, and you can't do it every minute of the day. that would be a bigger undertaking than just outlawing guns outright. as you say, people who have that intention will still have them, but the accessibility is key because it just makes that decision that much easier.
Keeping a gun in the home and on my person does keep me safer than I would be without one. Criminals have illegal guns... why on earth would I not want to legally arm myself ? Statistics prove that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals ie criminals don't care about the law in the first place and will always carry guns therefor it is only logical to allow law abiding citizens to legally carry as a form of self defense. Guns also have the lowest injury rate when it comes to defending yourself from an attacker. Guns actually save more lives than they take and prevent more injuries than they inflict.also, its not about how many people die in these kind of tragedies. gang violence and illegal guns are problems, but how does you keeping a gun in your house relate to that? You may feel safer, and im sure statistics would show a majority that have them in the home have never used them or had a reason to. Compare that to the amount of accidental shootings in the home and im sure theres a greater disparity then people who have had to defend themselves from an intruder.
What? I'm having a hard time making sense of that grammatical tragedy of a sentence.and im not one to idealize american founding principles, so the perversion and minimization of principles regarding guns probably had something to do the pursuit of life, liberty and freedom being infringed upon by a gun.
Do you think its a coincidence that crime rates are consistently lower in places with conceal carry laws ? Do you think its a coincidence that crime rates go up when guns are banned ? Look at Australia their rate of gun related violence has actually gone UP since their weapons ban. There has been a spike in Armed robberies, Assaults with Guns, Gun murders and Home invasions. Arms bans do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals... all they do is leave those who abide by the law defenseless. Similar situation in the UK.do you think its an accident that those cities you listed have high crime rates and high gun legislation? how do you think those lawmakers make a living and stay elected if not by letting guns in and then prosecuting the criminals?
All other methods of defense pose a much greater chance of injury to the defender. A gun allows a 100lb girl to defend herself from a 220lb man... a gun allows a 70 year old to defend them self from a fit 20 year old. Personal firearms are referred to as the great equalizer because they allow anyone to defend themselves no matter the size, strength or athletic inclination of the attacker. Guns allow for a more equal and civilized society because the weak need not fear the strong and the strong need not fear large numbers of the weak.as far as the great equalizer, there are alternatives to guns that can deter criminals as well
guns arent the real issue in that case, if we're getting rid of guns, its ammunition.The only problem with getting rid of guns is that there are already so many out there. Secondly, it invites cartels from down South to have a reason to come into America. I'll take one white mental kid shooting up a school (my alma matar) in fact over the progressive increase in crime, gangs, death, economic instability that having a black market gun trade would bring upon America. It's not like this is Asia where the government is ruthless about this sort of stuff. The people in America are too nice about criminals. There is no real deterrent.
your second point i dont agree with, i need an explanation of this hypothetical black market for guns.
cartels arent waiting for gun laws to change before they "increase crime, gangs etc."
they here now and our govt knows all about it
Banning guns as a reaction to these tragedies is akin to someone wanting to ban cars after a drunk driver killed their son. Guns and cars both have perfectly valid uses for decent people, and both can be used by people to do harmful things. The benefits of each far outweigh the cost. As I have stated multiple times in this thread, the notion that further arms restrictions would keep people safer is a fallacy based on emotions, not logic or statistics. The White House recently released a study entitled "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". The objective of this study was to assess the dangers of guns in America and see what kind of regulations could be implemented to keep people safer. The study revealed consistently lower injury rates among gun carrying crime victims; ie guns keep decent law abiding citizens safer than they would be without one. It was indicated that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals; ie criminals don't care about the law in the first place and will always carry guns therefor it is only logical to allow law abiding citizens to legally carry as a form of self defense.It's not an excuse, it's common sense because guns are made exclusively for killing. And they kill much more efficiently than other products, such as knives. We would be making a compromise by banning "everything" that can harm someone. We could ban knives, but what are we going to cut our food with? Thousands of people die in traffic every year. We could ban cars, but how would we get from A to B, for example to work without having to lose many hours of time and all the other benefits from cars? What compromise would we have to make for banning guns other than this exploitation of the word "freedom"? Of course you can't ban everything that is dangerous. You can easily kill someone with a rock and rocks are all around us so it's impossible to ban everything that can harm you. You can however ban stuff that is exclusively made for killing and allows lunatics to conveniently kill dozens of people within minutes. Unlike knives, cars and other products that can kill, the "killing ability to useful for other functions" ratio of a gun is very one dimensional.Its a scary notion... but crazy people can buy all sorts of things. Is that an excuse to just ban anything remotely dangerous, because it could possibly be used to kill? You have to accept that in a society there are going to be malicious and unstable individuals, who can and will visit harm upon others. That is a fact of life, but we can't just give up our freedoms for the sake of increasing our safety and infinitesimal amount. It's also worth noting that in this case that the killer stabbed 3 people and used his vehicle as a weapon to injure many more.
when did i say he wasnt mentally ill tho, i just said it wasnt the defining reason1. You are arguing about "blame" and "fault" with no one... you seem to think that saying his mental issues led him to commit this act is saying that he is not to blame... that is your personal assessment and you are fighting against your own perception of a fact. Who in this whole thread has even alluded to him not being to blame for the killings he committed?....don't worry, i'll wait.
2. Refer to #1
3. When you start arguing about "blame" "fault" "sole reason" you lead the topic into a whole psychoanalytical/philosophical direction.... which leads to nothing but vague assumptions because we really don't know the exact details of his mindstate, what is psychiatrists saw, what really led to this point... we only have the videos/manifesto where he was deliberately projecting a character.
4. Refer to #1
The thing with you... is that you feel that having a mental illness absolves you from "blame"... we've executed mentally ill people... a large portion of the prison population is "mentally ill" ..so I don't see what you are fighting for.
The sad part of your logic, is that to YOU; mentally ill = not responsible... so because you feel he should be responsible, you try to negate his mental illness... it's like you're working backwards...
Not just that, you try to change your argument from "he wasn't mentally ill" to "he didn't have a disease".... lol
You are arguing with your own definitions... quote the person who said the killings are not his fault...i'll wait
to me, saying hes mentally ill takes the bulk of responsibility of his actions off of his intent and places it on his illness/disorders
being mentally ill doesnt automatically make you a killer, so to say that he killed because he is mentally ill is a slap in the face of people who deal with these issues as well and dont kill
Did anyone even say that the sole reason he perpetrated the act was because he was mentally ill?being mentally ill doesnt automatically make you a killer, so to say that he killed because he is mentally ill is a slap in the face of people who deal with these issues as well and dont kill
Yah and he killed his roommates because he just didn't like them.I thought he killed the chicks because he didn't get yambs...?
Yah and he killed his roommates because he just didn't like them.I thought he killed the chicks because he didn't get yambs...?
i put basketball shorts on because I wanted to hoop... but what about other people who want to hoop but wear sweatpants instead?
View media item 999190
youre missing the point of my analogy. rogers actions being solely blamed on his mental health insinuates that he had no intent or desire to do harm, but was compelled to do so by his mental issues, and that they are beyond controlling. in all of ur analogies, there is no basis for the intent, only the action and the result, which are well within ones control.ok let's play that game....using the same logic and format..
-Saying the guy murdered his wife because he was angry is a slap in the face of all the other people who are angry in the world but don't kill their wives
-Saying he raped and murdered a prostitute because he is a sociopath is a slap in the face of all the other sociopaths who don't rape or kill prostitutes.
-Saying he sold drugs because he grew up in poverty and wanted fast money is a slap in the face of all the other people who grow up in poverty and want fast money but don't sell drugs.
-Saying he changed all his workers from fulltime to part time because he didn't want to get taxed by obamacare is a slap in the face of the other business owners who don't want to get taxed by obamacare but don't change their employee's work status..
-Saying he went on niketalk to find sneaker news is a slap in the face of other people who want sneaker news but don't goto niketalk
and so on and so forth...The arguments you make are so weak in basis, I'm sure you are still in highschool and have a small view of the world or just don't have a solid grasp on how to look at your own thoughts objectively so you can convey a message that makes sense to anybody besides yourself...The sad part of your logic, is that to YOU; mentally ill = not responsible... so because you feel he should be responsible, you try to negate his mental illness... it's like you're working backwards...
see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.Originally Posted by dankenstien88
You've been reaching so much this whole thread... you keep changing your statements and you're really beginning to make yourself look more foolish with each post.
Nobody is saying mental illness alleviates him from the responsibility for his actions and of course being mentally ill does not automatically make someone a killer, nobody said that either. Instead of researching the issue, expanding your horizons and informing yourself on the topic; you resort to twisting people words and crossing out what they said to suit your agenda. It's getting pathetic.
so why are you debating with me if we agree that its not the sole reason?Did anyone even say that the sole reason he perpetrated the act was because he was mentally ill?being mentally ill doesnt automatically make you a killer, so to say that he killed because he is mentally ill is a slap in the face of people who deal with these issues as well and dont kill
rogers actions being solely blamed on his mental health insinuates that he had no intent or desire to do harm, but was compelled to do so by his mental issues, and that they are beyond controlling.
but im not applying those "associations" to mental health, im applying them to him and attributing them to his actionsthese associations of "intent" "desire" "blame" "fault" you apply to mental health are being mirrored by no one... you are still arguing with your own definitions and you don't even see it...rogers actions being solely blamed on his mental health insinuates that he had no intent or desire to do harm, but was compelled to do so by his mental issues, and that they are beyond controlling.
rogers actions being solely blamed on his mental health insinuates that he had no intent or desire to do harm, but was compelled to do so by his mental issues, and that they are beyond controlling.
these associations of "intent" "desire" "blame" "fault" you apply to mental health are being mirrored by no one... you are still arguing with your own definitions and you don't even see it...
but im not applying those "associations" to mental health, im applying them to him and attributing them to his actions
intent - the willfull decision to act
desire - the wish to see an intention acted out
blame/fault - the acknowledgement of responsibility
basically what yall are saying is he was crazy and he went mad and went on a rampage.
my opinion is that he was in full "control" (intent + desire) to act regardless of consequence (blame/fault)
youre missing the point of my analogy. rogers actions being solely blamed on his mental health insinuates that he had no intent or desire to do harm, but was compelled to do so by his mental issues, and that they are beyond controlling. in all of ur analogies, there is no basis for the intent, only the action and the result, which are well within ones control.ok let's play that game....using the same logic and format..
-Saying the guy murdered his wife because he was angry is a slap in the face of all the other people who are angry in the world but don't kill their wives
-Saying he raped and murdered a prostitute because he is a sociopath is a slap in the face of all the other sociopaths who don't rape or kill prostitutes.
-Saying he sold drugs because he grew up in poverty and wanted fast money is a slap in the face of all the other people who grow up in poverty and want fast money but don't sell drugs.
-Saying he changed all his workers from fulltime to part time because he didn't want to get taxed by obamacare is a slap in the face of the other business owners who don't want to get taxed by obamacare but don't change their employee's work status..
-Saying he went on niketalk to find sneaker news is a slap in the face of other people who want sneaker news but don't goto niketalk
and so on and so forth...
The sad part of your logic, is that to YOU; mentally ill = not responsible... so because you feel he should be responsible, you try to negate his mental illness... it's like you're working backwards...
The arguments you make are so weak in basis, I'm sure you are still in highschool and have a small view of the world or just don't have a solid grasp on how to look at your own thoughts objectively so you can convey a message that makes sense to anybody besides yourself...
im not working backwards. he was in treatment for his problems, so he was aware of the problems he had. he made a decision to be responsible for his actions, thats why he killed himself.
also, i dont resort to insulting your intelligence by belittling you.
see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.
planning in that you dont make a bomb in a day. he could have decided any day was the day with a gun in hand. he planned this attack, but something like this doesnt take the same planning as something like okc.
This statement makes no sense... Whether is a factor or the factor the the meaning and intent of the statement is the same. Stop projecting your own implications onto other peoples statements in a lame attempt to save face. You are making a fool of yourself.theres a difference between what i said and what you said. a factor means one of many. the factor means the single, motivating reason.
yes but the basis for ptsd is that experience. we dont all have traumatic experiences, so we dont all have mental issues.
I never said it was impossible to outlaw guns.. anything can be outlawed. If guns were outlawed we would see an exponential increase in crime.. see Mexico and Australia for case examples. Legal guns make up a very small percentage of gun deaths and all the facts state that legal guns do keep people safer than they would be without one. Banning weapons will do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals most likely to misuse them.yes they will, but with a gun they are so much more dangerous. as much as you think its impossible to outlaw guns, its is even more impossible to monitor every single person, every single minute, of every single day, to ensure that they are "qualified" to possess a firearm.
my issue isnt that a criminal should have a gun and you shouldnt. i dont see how defensive and offensive use could be the same when as you said criminals always have their guns on them. so for every criminal that is using his gun offensively, there is a person defending himself using a gun in his home or on the street 100% of the time? and who's injury rate is lower when it comes to defending yourself, you or the attacker?
id like to see the stats on how many lives guns save and injury prevention too.
your idea of guns has been perverted because so many people die from gun violence.
the correlation between carry/conceal and lower gun crime is not necessarily attributable simply to that. what are the socioeconomic factors of said areas?
once again, my issue is not to take a gun out of just your hand, but everyone criminal and civilian alike.
what so what youre saying is the delicate balance that society rests on is mutually assured destruction? i thought we had laws, norms and mores to make equal and civilized society, but i guess all it takes is a gun to make the world a better place?
so i can go to walmart and buy supplies to make a gun? ammo too? and have facilities to conduct this?
it sounds like what youre really saying is gun manufacture is too profitable and we cant afford to lose out to other countries if we restrict guns here
yes that is what im saying. unless someone is suffering from a mentally debilitating disease then yes they are not absolved.so are you saying that being mentally ill doesn't absolve you from blame or are you saying mental illness does not exist?
im not ignoring it, im just not convinced that it was a factor to the degree that you are making it seem. was he a narcissist, depressed, angry yes, but those is are not diseases that affect your cognitive ability to reason, or disorders that prevent from knowing whats right from whats wrong.
Originally Posted by dankenstien88
Just stop.
Nobody is blaming Rodgers actions solely on mental illness, but you can not ignore that the man was obviously mentally ill.
no its one thing to disagree quite another to say im in high school or that im a fool.Quote:No one is attacking you. People are calling you out on being uninformed, changing your statements and projecting your own implications onto other peoples statements.see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.
i thought it was clear the difference between planning a bombing and plotting a shooting spree but you asked for elaboration.Quote:Again you are changing your statements. Quit while you're behind.planning in that you dont make a bomb in a day. he could have decided any day was the day with a gun in hand. he planned this attack, but something like this doesnt take the same planning as something like okc.
no they are two different things.This statement makes no sense... Whether is a factor or the factor the the meaning and intent of the statement is the same. Stop projecting your own implications onto other peoples statements in a lame attempt to save face. You are making a fool of yourself.theres a difference between what i said and what you said. a factor means one of many. the factor means the single, motivating reason.
so what is your conclusion? that ptsd can lead to aberrant behavior? development of ptsd is not a symptom of violent behavior, it is a catalyst.That wasn't what I said. I said traumatic experiences can happen anyone, therefor anyone can develop PTSD. Additionally I said PTSD is not the only late onset mental illness. Again you are twisting peoples words and looking like a fool while doing so.yes but the basis for ptsd is that experience. we dont all have traumatic experiences, so we dont all have mental issues.
my issue isnt with legal gun owners, it is with guns period. what im saying is that is easier to outlaw guns than to monitor and diagnose every single person who owns a gun with absolute accuracy. since the problem is with who is picking up the gun, why not just eliminate the gun from the equation altogether.I never said it was impossible to outlaw guns.. anything can be outlawed. If guns were outlawed we would see an exponential increase in crime.. see Mexico and Australia for case examples. Legal guns make up a very small percentage of gun deaths and all the facts state that legal guns do keep people safer than they would be without one. Banning weapons will do nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals most likely to misuse them.yes they will, but with a gun they are so much more dangerous. as much as you think its impossible to outlaw guns, its is even more impossible to monitor every single person, every single minute, of every single day, to ensure that they are "qualified" to possess a firearm.
Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.
guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense.
Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.
Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Vermont:
Florida:
Kennesaw, GA.:
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Orlando, FL:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1992/03/20/orlando-00001/
Justice Department study:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...alities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
im sorry but did you make that graph yourself?
There is good a reason no slaves in the history of the world were ever allowed firearms.
Lincoln freed the slaves, Samuel colt made them equal
It's about acknowledging the fact that prohibition of any item will lead to a profitable black market and more crime.
Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either.
Didnt read lolBut you did say he woke up and started blasting, you said nothing about it giving him the opportunity. The exact quote is : "something like oklahoma city takes planning, whereas this kid woke up one moring and started blasting."
Mental illness was most definitely a factor in this event, as it is in most scenarios like this. Sane people simply don't stab and shoot people because girls don't like them.
PTSD and late onset mental illness was not brought up in relation to Rodgers, but rather your statement that it couldn't have been any of us because we don't all have mental issues.
I agree that this mentality exists when those who wish to do harm are the only people armed. It's the reason these incidents almost always happen in gun restricted areas.
Guns are just a tool. It's the persons intention that poses a danger. Restricting personal firearms does not eliminate that danger. Unless we deal with the mental health aspect those people will continue to pose a danger, with or without a gun.
Keeping a gun in the home and on my person does keep me safer than I would be without one. Criminals have illegal guns... why on earth would I not want to legally arm myself ? Statistics prove that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals ie criminals don't care about the law in the first place and will always carry guns therefor it is only logical to allow law abiding citizens to legally carry as a form of self defense. Guns also have the lowest injury rate when it comes to defending yourself from an attacker. Guns actually save more lives than they take and prevent more injuries than they inflict.
What? I'm having a hard time making sense of that grammatical tragedy of a sentence.
Do you think its a coincidence that crime rates are consistently lower in places with conceal carry laws ? Do you think its a coincidence that crime rates go up when guns are banned ? Look at Australia their rate of gun related violence has actually gone UP since their weapons ban. There has been a spike in Armed robberies, Assaults with Guns, Gun murders and Home invasions. Arms bans do nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals... all they do is leave those who abide by the law defenseless. Similar situation in the UK.
All other methods of defense pose a much greater chance of injury to the defender. A gun allows a 100lb girl to defend herself from a 220lb man... a gun allows a 70 year old to defend them self from a fit 20 year old. Personal firearms are referred to as the great equalizer because they allow anyone to defend themselves no matter the size, strength or athletic inclination of the attacker. Guns allow for a more equal and civilized society because the weak need not fear the strong and the strong need not fear large numbers of the weak.
First it was guns ? Now its ammo ?
Guns are easy to manufacture... Ammunition is even easier.
It's not hypothetical... There is a very real black market for guns already. Russia is a huge supplier of both legal and black market weapons world wide. It is completely unrealistic to think that if guns, let alone ammunition, were banned in the US other countries wouldn't use it as an opportunity to capitalize.
There are already a large number of illegal weapons in the US, but the fact we allow people to buy legally registered firearms makes for a much less profitable black market than say for instance Mexico, where they have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. If gun laws in the US were to become more restrictive, illegal arms dealers would certainly seize the opportunity.
Banning guns as a reaction to these tragedies is akin to someone wanting to ban cars after a drunk driver killed their son. Guns and cars both have perfectly valid uses for decent people, and both can be used by people to do harmful things. The benefits of each far outweigh the cost. As I have stated multiple times in this thread, the notion that further arms restrictions would keep people safer is a fallacy based on emotions, not logic or statistics. The White House recently released a study entitled "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence". The objective of this study was to assess the dangers of guns in America and see what kind of regulations could be implemented to keep people safer. The study revealed consistently lower injury rates among gun carrying crime victims; ie guns keep decent law abiding citizens safer than they would be without one. It was indicated that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals; ie criminals don't care about the law in the first place and will always carry guns therefor it is only logical to allow law abiding citizens to legally carry as a form of self defense.
You've been reaching so much this whole thread... you keep changing your statements and you're really beginning to make yourself look more foolish with each post.
Nobody is saying mental illness alleviates him from the responsibility for his actions and of course being mentally ill does not automatically make someone a killer, nobody said that either. Instead of researching the issue, expanding your horizons and informing yourself on the topic; you resort to twisting people words and crossing out what they said to suit your agenda. It's getting pathetic.
Narcissistic personality disorder and depression are both mental illnesses that can very much effect someones ability to reason. Narcissism can effect someones ability to know right from wrong because they believe everything they do is right. This is especially relevant when combined with sociopathy like Rodgers exhibited.im not ignoring it, im just not convinced that it was a factor to the degree that you are making it seem. was he a narcissist, depressed, angry yes, but those is are not diseases that affect your cognitive ability to reason, or disorders that prevent from knowing whats right from whats wrong.
no they are two different things.
to be a factor is to be of nominal importance
to be the factor is to be of utmost significance
how is it not clear the distinction between the two in terms of evaluating this event?
so what is your conclusion? that ptsd can lead to aberrant behavior? development of ptsd is not a symptom of violent behavior, it is a catalyst.
my issue isnt with legal gun owners, it is with guns period. what im saying is that is easier to outlaw guns than to monitor and diagnose every single person who owns a gun with absolute accuracy. since the problem is with who is picking up the gun, why not just eliminate the gun from the equation altogether.