US Connecticut Shooting

Sorry for my continued smartassedness. I don't have a real solution beyond the one people have always used. Bury the dead, grieve in whatever way you feel appropriate, and harden your heart in preparation for the next incident which should be happening shortly (I heard another bomb just killed about 20 in Pakistan).

That's basically it. It's hard to stop a mad killer who wants to kill people. Look at the Happy Land Fire - almost 100 dead. And that wasn't the deadliest arson fire.

I dont understand this idea of the kid "getting the help he needed." What sort of help even exists for someone like him anywhere? No such programme for kids who are potential troubled loners exist anywhere and he was completely unable to fit into society.

Some would say that is a large part of the problem.
 
Any qualified psychiatrist can pick out someone likely to kill well before it happens

On TV, but not in real life. TV gives the illusion that psychiatry and psychology are hard sciences, but the fact is that there is much more that is unknown than is known. I've known people who have gotten conflicting diagnoses from every professional who has treated them. And the fact is that, if you're halfway intelligent and not completely *gone* it's pretty easy to deceive a psychiatrist/psychologist. Hell, it's hard to not put on a veneer of normalcy even when you're actively and voluntarily seeing a professional. I've known more than one suicide whose psychiatrist/psychologist completely missed that they were suicidal.



I'm tired of no one taking responsibility for their own actions. It's the guns' fault people died, not the psycho pulling the trigger. Let's ban pit bulls (or whatever 'dog of the decade') instead of holding the HUMANS that use them a weapons responsible. Let's put a tax on pop because it's Pepsi's and Coke's fault people are obese from it. Because they pour it down our throats by the gallon of course. And let's sue McDonalds and win because you are stupid enough to dump hot coffee on yourself.

Has anyone said the murderer wasn't responsible? I missed that.

Your pit bull ban analogy would be apt if we were talking about banning trucks because someone drove a truck into a crowd with the intention of killing a lot of people. Otherwise, it's not an apt analogy, unless you're trying to say pit bulls' only purpose is to kill, injure and/or intimidate.

My initial reaction to the McDonald's coffee case was the same as yours; then I read the facts, and changed my mind. This article sets out the basics, and you might find it illuminating: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Someone as bright as this shooter evidently was would have found a way to cause great harm even if he didn't have easy access to guns thanks to his mom, who likely lived in denial about how ****ed up he was. Timothy McVey caused more loss of life without using a single gun.

Maybe, and maybe not. I guess it depends whether he was motivated by the kind of cold calculation McVeigh was, the kind of calculation during which one doesn't change one's mind during weeks and months of planning and preparation. Most murders don't occur with that kind of cold calculation though. In most cases, people act in anger, on impulse, without thinking through the consequences, and if the means and opportunity aren't available during the period of anger (or during the period of a psychotic break, in some instances), no one dies, or fewer people die.

I mean, think about it - if, as you say, he was intelligent enough to make a bomb, why disn't he? He could have taken out the whole school instead of just two classrooms.
 
I mean, think about it - if, as you say, he was intelligent enough to make a bomb, why disn't he? He could have taken out the whole school instead of just two classrooms.

Culturally, guns seem favored for mass murder in this society.

Guns will get you publicity. People fear guns, thus mass murders committed with gun get more news coverage.
 
Culturally, guns seem favored for mass murder in this society.

Guns will get you publicity. People fear guns, thus mass murders committed with gun get more news coverage.

Oh, really? More than bombs? I seem to recall that the Oklahoma City bombing got quite a bit of coverage. And even those little, individualized bombs that in most cases maimed rather than killed made the Unabomber a household name.

If people fear guns more than bombs, it's because gun killings are such a constant.
 
Oh, really? More than bombs? I seem to recall that the Oklahoma City bombing got quite a bit of coverage. And even those little, individualized bombs that in most cases maimed rather than killed made the Unabomber a household name.

Unabomber and OKC are the exceptions. Most of the time, guns are the weapon that will get you fame. After all, try to name an arsonist mass-murderer. Can you?
 
I'm seeing the mood of the country as a whole concerning gun violence move in a positive and less confrontational direction. It's quite sad that it's taken such an accumulation of tragedy. I'm not so naive as to argue that limiting access to guns will stop all violent episodes like these but it will stop some of them. Moreover, it can begin to move our nation toward a less aggressive and destructive means of solving problems, both real and perceived.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freesia
Let me tell you three stories from my life.



The first story:
My stepson was a kid with learning disabilities, one of those odd kids who get picked on. In adolescence, he had anger issues. At the time I met his father, he was hospitalized because he had attacked his mother. He was in counseling. After he reached the age of majority, he refused to go to any more counseling, even though he was fond of and had a great deal of respect for his old therapist.

As a teen, he was fixated on martial arts – not in learning them (he was physically awkward and unsure), but the associated weaponry – the throwing stars, the numchucks, etc. That turned to a fixation on guns in his twenties. It didn’t take a professional or even particular insight to see that he felt he would be empowered by weapons.

After he finished high school, he just floated for a while. He wasn’t good at holding down jobs – he’d get made fun of, and then he’d quit or get fired. It was during this period that I realized that he was doing something in various areas of the house that was *odd* (not a strong enough word, but I’m not going into details, out of respect for his privacy) enough that I was sure it was a symptom of some pretty severe psychological issues, more severe than those readily apparent. I talked to his father and mother about it, because I felt that he desperately needed to be in counseling. His mother’s reaction was that I was doing it and blaming him to make him look bad. Finally, his father came upon him in the act, and told him that he would have to go back to counseling if he wanted to continue to live with us. He moved in with his mother that same evening.

After a few years, he ended up in a job that worked out for him. Things seemed to be going along pretty well – much better than ever before, except for his really intense interest in guns. The Christmas before his death, his father suggested that we buy him a gun for Christmas, “to help him with his self esteem.” I said no way, no how – I did not think he had the emotional or psychological stability to have a gun.

Unbeknownst to anyone in the family, he had already bought himself a number of guns. We found that out the following Easter. He and his mother went out for Easter lunch. When they came home, she watched TV in the living room and he went to hang out in his bedroom, which was adjacent to the living room. He apparently accidentally pulled the trigger. The bullet went through the wall and lodged in the living room ceiling. His mother, not unnaturally, went ballistic, and told him he would have to get rid of the gun or else move out. We know this because my stepdaughter telephoned to wish them a happy Easter in the middle of the ensuing fight. Sometime later that evening, while his mother was reading in bed, he emptied the entire clip of a semi automatic. The bedroom was riddled with bullet holes – he wasn’t a good shot, but you don’t need to be a good shot if you have enough bullets.

Then he reloaded, called 911, gave the address and reported that there had been a shooting. The 911 operator asked whether an ambulance was needed, and he said, “No, they’re both dead.” When the police got there, they were, even though the police arrived within a minute – the station was just up the street.
This will sound odd, but he was not a bad person. He was not mean, or cruel. He would never have done what this Connecticut shooter did – kill children, or strangers. I would not have been surprised if he had shot co-workers who made fun of him – he had never learned how to deal with that sort of thing, and it would not have surprised me if he had lashed out violently, and the thought of that possibility is why I put my foot down about buying him a gun. But frankly, I would never have expected him to kill his mother – he loved her, very much. And, odd as it may sound, he was so law abiding that he would never have acquired a gun illegally. And I do know that he would never have had the wherewithal to use a knife.

If that gun had not been there, neither Bonnie nor Tim would have died that day. My stepdaughter would not have had to live with that day for the rest of her life, and her daughters would have known their grandmother.

Are all gun deaths so easily avoidable? No, but those two certainly were, and they are not the only ones.



The second story:

My vet was a young woman who broke up with her boyfriend. He took it badly enough that she was nervous, and started taking her dogs to the clinic with her. One day soon after, she went home for lunch, taking her dogs with her. As she pulled up at her house, her ex boyfriend stepped up to her car window and shot her in the head multiple times. Then he shot himself in the gut, not managing to kill himself. So he drove to his uncle’s for more ammunition and finished the job.



The third story:

A middle aged friend was driving home in the early evening. The highway was congested enough that traffic was stop and go. Another driver got angry because he thought my friend had cut him off. He got out of his vehicle, walked up to my friend’s car, and shot him dead.

Those are not the only such stories in my life; they just happened to occur within less than two years of each other.

 
Unabomber and OKC are the exceptions. Most of the time, guns are the weapon that will get you fame. After all, try to name an arsonist mass-murderer. Can you?

I thought we were talking about bombs - suddenly that's inconvenient, since I proved you wrong, so you change the subject to arson?

We've had this discussion before - I take great pains to not remember the names of mass murderers or serial murderers - they do not deserve to be remembered. I remember Speck's name, because he was the first one I was old enough to remember. I remember McVeigh, because his name is brought up all the time, as is Bundy's. (Although generally I have had to have heard/read those two names fairly recently, such as the mention of McVeigh in an earlier post.) I have even managed to already forget the name of this guy in Connecticut, although I think it starts with an "L".
 
I thought we were talking about bombs - suddenly that's inconvenient, since I proved you wrong, so you change the subject to arson?

Aren't we talking about ways a deranged person can kill others? Bombs seem to work well, but so does arson.

We've had this discussion before - I take great pains to not remember the names of mass murderers or serial murderers - they do not deserve to be remembered. I remember Speck's name, because he was the first one I was old enough to remember. I remember McVeigh, because his name is brought up all the time, as is Bundy's.

But what mass murderers do most people remember?
 
MLP, sorry for your losses, by the way. I really am.

It would be nice if we linked mental health records to background checks for firearm purchases, but I could see the problems with that (it could be very foreseeable that such a database of mental health would sooner or later be accessible to police for all purposes, which may increase the stigma against the mentally ill, causing them to be less likely to get help).
 
I am so sorry to read that MLP (((((((hug)))))) though a hug seems futile. I cant imagine what it must have been like to have had these things happen, especially in such a short space of time.
 
\

It would be nice if we linked mental health records to background checks for firearm purchases

It would be nice if nobody wanted to own a firearm at all.

And btw I actually like bulls, I have an English Bull Terrier.
 
I don't know that my stepson would even have qualified as mentally ill by the time of the murder/suicide (he was 27 by then). He really was functioning well although somewhat socially awkward. If you had met him, you would have thought him slightly odd, because he tried so hard to fit in, to be liked. Poor impulse control, but that's true of a lot of people, and doesn't really qualify one as mentally ill.

The man who murdered my vet? Not mentally ill - the all too common domestic dispute murder/suicide. The man in the road rage killing? Also not mentally ill.

The fact is, it's not uncommon, not unusual, for people to lose control, and when a gun is right there, it can take a minute or less of loss of control, and someone is dead. That was the case in the road rage incident.

Guns just make it so ****ing easy to kill out of a momentary rage. And I think it's a small percentage of people who aren't capable of such killing rages, given just the *right* confluence of events.
 
The fact is, it's not uncommon, not unusual, for people to lose control, and when a gun is right there, it can take a minute or less of loss of control, and someone is dead. That was the case in the road rage incident.

If you are willing to kill someone who has cut you off, you're mentally ill. No if, ands or buts.

Judging from my experience with drivers, I'd say a small but worrisome percentage of them are mentally ill.
 
But what mass murderers do most people remember?

Well, they certainly remember those who use bombs, don't they?

The arson murders seem to tend to fall within two basic categories - the guys who have a grudge against a former lover or other individual, and intend to kill that person or person(s), and everyone is *collateral damage*, and arson at places like nightclubs (which seems to be kind of a worldwide phenomenon, doesn't it?)

I think that people don't take particular note of the former, because while the body count may be higher than the usual domestic murder, those extra deaths are *just collateral*, and people view them as just another one of the nonending parade of murders resulting from domestic disputes or personal grudges.

And I think that with respect to the nightclub, etc. fires, the distinguishing factor is that the perpetrators aren't trying to make a name for themselves - that's not how they're getting their jollies. They get their jollies from the fires, and eventually from fatal fires. It's the act that they're interested in, not the fame - they generally seem to want to live to do it another day. They're not seeing themselves as the center of the drama, the way a shooter is, and often they're not identified until after the fact, and by then the public interest has already died down.

In short, quite different motivations. If an arsonist wanted to make the kind of statement these shooters do, he would walk into a theater, a school, with a flamethrower, not set fires and slink away to watch from a safe distance.
 
If you are willing to kill someone who has cut you off, you're mentally ill. No if, ands or buts.

Maybe by your definition.

Is the person who kills his/her SO because the SO is leaving him/her mentally ill? How about the adult who slams a child's head against the wall to stop the child from crying? Isn't pretty much every murderer mentally ill by your definition?