Two Journalist Shot Dead During Live Broadcast

Parent Cafe
61

“mental illness” is almost as big a catchall as “illness”.

And the idea that “well, MY form of mental illness is not dangerous” vs. “yeah, maybe SOME people’s form of mental illness is dangerous” is bull. A woman in my state got off a murder charge (killing her son, no less) “by reason of insanity” yet the only documented mental illness was clinical depression. That diagnosis of clinical depression was enough for her to be cleared of a hate crime against a disabled person - her son who had a recent epilepsy diagnosis. We put all our sympathy on the “poor mother who was shattered by her son’s epilepsy diagnosis” vs putting any value on his life. But hey, they named a scholarship after him…

If we just start with that everyone is an individual, and that two people with the same apparent manifestation of the same mental illness must be different in many ways, then certainly people with different mental illnesses are different too. Can we instead screen aspects of mental illness, or more generally, severe anti-social thoughts, rather than pinning behaviors on generalized mental illness titles?

Every kid with autism doesn’t take off their clothes in front of many people. My nephew does. Every person with depression doesn’t cut themselves. I did. People who get good grades and play sports aren’t showing signs of depression. But I was depressed at the same time as I was getting good grades and playing sports - still did my homework though, still didn’t show signs in public of my illness.

What everyone really wants is “no fault” for them and their family and friends, and “100% fault” for strangers - the perps we see on TV. No one really wants to know or care about the struggles the Tsarnaev brothers had fitting in to life in the US (read about their dealings with colleges). No one really wants to now or care about Adam Lanza being tagged as “weird” and “anti-social” by people who knew him in HS. Or this guy - real or imagined discrimination against him due to his status as a black homosexual man, perhaps one who spoke his mind a little too often.

All we focus on is the result. We should of course focus on what could have made him not be a shooter. What forces could we as a society bring to bear to make him seek appropriate help. But can society do anything - we can’t lock up all guns - we can’t be a stable relationship for someone who has trouble keeping in relationships.

The Tyler Clementi case comes to mind as well. His mom clearly rejected him due to him being gay. Yet his roommate bore the brunt of Mr. Clementi’s suicide, like the “prank” was the sole reason for the troubled young man to kill himself. So let’s make rules about not filming someone without their permission, to prevent suicide? How about considering severe emotional abuse of your child the same as other forms of child abuse? Now she’s left with one gay son, so now she knows better, and puts down the roommate as much as she can. Because she can’t take responsibility for her role in her son’s death.

We spend too much time on these types of tragedies (and I don’t agree that the US is the epicenter of this - read up on mass killings in other countries, including China and India - the ones that are reported that is) and not enough time on the heroes, like those who prevented a major terrorist attack in France. Every time there is an “almost shooting”, like the one prevented this week at a high school by a teacher who calmed down a 14 year old with a gun, and convinced him to not let the next class enter the room - it is a side note and not big news.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/armed-student-holds-hostages-west-virginia-high-school-surrenders-n415956

62

We all have a natural impulse to convince ourselves that people who commit horrible acts are fundamentally different from ourselves. Depending on your philosophical viewpoint, this generally either means thinking that the perpetrators are mentally ill, or that they are evil.

63

The illness most closely related to planned criminal activity is Antisocial Personality Disorder, aka Sociopathy.

A sociopath sees the world as their playground and other people as pawns for them to use as they see fit. The sociopath may seem amoral in conversation; he does what he wants to when he wants to, regardless of laws, customs, or the opinions/wants/needs of others.

When this disorder manifests itself violently, you can end up with mass murderers. Milder forms may end up in non- or less-violent criminal activity. I believe perhaps some white-collar crime is related to Sociopathy also.

Some killers suffer from psychosis – Schizophrenia or any other source of severe delusions. This illness is much harder to control than APD: a sociopath knows exactly what he or she is doing, while someone who is psychotic may not be aware of their actions or be able to control them.

And then there are the crimes of passion… no psychosis or APD necessary, just a lot of anger or desperation and the impulse to act on it.

64

Sociopathy knows no race designation. This guy is no different than Dylan Roof in SC, motivated by race-hatred and the world was his pawn to ignite and use.

65

So sorry ML…prayers…

66

my son is in school for journalism attending same school the surviving boyfriend graduated from. this is all a bit too close to home. what is this country’s obsession with guns?

67

I don’t think I ever said all forms of mental illness put one at a higher risk of committing this kind of crime. But I do believe people who do this do not necessarily have to be insane, but do have psychopathy, probably the kind that none of us have ever met - more like major personality disorders as opposed to mood disorders. And yes, perhaps it’s a philosophical viewpoint difference we’re having. The biggest threat people with mood disorders have, is of hurting themselves.

If you are interested in reading more about this, I suggest reading the book Columbine.

68

There are three things I immediately took away from this:

  1. It assumes Americans are less resourceful and capable without a gun available. That is something I do not buy into.

For example, Japan has a population 41% that of the US (125M JPN, 305M US), yet Japan has some 30,000 suicides annually with the overwhelming majority are NOT by guns because handguns are super tightly-controlled. I believe guns are not even in the top 6 or 7 methods used by the Japanese. Simply, a gun is not even necessary for someone committed to killing himself.

While I agree a gun makes things easier, that in no way means the absence of a gun makes suicide less probable. Unless one takes away all methods of suicide, then I posit Americans are just as smart as the Japanese and would find a way to commit suicide without a gun.

  1. Your examples do not take into account the advantages of defensive gun use and the resulting death that would occur without such use. There is no free lunch.

For argument sake, let’s say you are correct that no guns available or the severe restrictions on non-criminal citizens who can have guns would reduce suicides. Given there are some 40,000 suicides annually, then guns are involved in just about half. I will allow, for argument sake, that half of the suicides by gun might not occur without a gun, with the other half finding another method to be successful.

However, this needs to be contrasted with defensive gun use, which averts a crime and potential physical harm, and represents some 500,000 to over 1M+ defensive uses per year by law-abiding citizens - actually, I think it is as high as 3M defensive uses have been estimated, but that is the high-end, so I will stick with a number somewhere in the middle.

Therefore, the relevant questions that naturally arise are: how many of these people would be dead if not given the opportunity to use a gun to stop a crime against them? I am of the camp it would be in the thousands, given the high number of defensive uses. And 2) morally, why would the life of the citizen who saves himself from harm using a gun defensively be deemed less important than that of a person intent on killing himself? I see both lives of equal importance and the saving of one, by taking away availability of a gun, should not come at the expense of stopping another from saving himself from harm with a gun used responsibly and properly.

Many do not like to hear it, but using a gun defensively has been shown to be as important to averting a successful crime (a portion, which would have resulted in death) because defensive use occurs just as much as criminal use of a gun. Thus, a use of a gun defensively effectively cuts successful crime in half, and only God knows how many lives are saved, but the answer is much more than zero lives are saved. Again, there is no free lunch.

  1. It is wishful thinking because one cannot legislate against stupidity. A gun is like anything else; it requires proper storage and use to be safe. No different than a car - that is why there are speed limits and other basic traffic laws aimed at the average driver.

The examples you listed represent irresponsible gun use. These are not reasons to take away the security that guns provide to other people who are responsible and where their responsible use have been successful in stopping a crime and saving some lives.

I think last week it was reported the number of vehicular deaths from car accidents went up last year, after steadily going down for a decade or more. And the reason cited? Cellphones and Internet availability in cars.

OK, if people are stupidly using cellphones and the Internet in cars while driving, should we take away people’s ability to make or to receive calls and messages in cars, even in emergencies or when said use could avert something catastrophic? And with more and more people spending time in their cars commuting, would cutting them off from the world while in their cars be a good idea just lower vehicular accidental deaths? Maybe not.

The relevant question is “At what cost?” because the increase in vehicular deaths caused by stupid cellphone usage needs to be juxtaposed to the number of times cellphones, while driving, are successfully used to report Amber Alert sighting (happens all the time), wanted criminals on the road (Dylan Roof), and to alert authorities of a crime in progress (happens all the time too). Yet, another example of no free lunch, in that many lives are saved by cellphone use while driving, and those lives are no less important than the ones lost by vehicular accidents by irresponsible use.

Note: If my numbers are off, I am again sure someone will correct.

69

No one ever said or implied that.

There are background checks in every state and felons are not allowed to have guns, including the mentally-ill. No poster, I have seen, says these checks should not exist, and that there are not certain people who should not have guns.

I agree that some will be caught too late - just as with anything else. This killer in VA yesterday was unstable, but had no record and had every right to buy a gun. That is not a reason to take guns away from others who are not sociopathic for no system is perfect.

In PA, a teenager killed three of her friends, while driving without a license and speeding etc. She had no accidents prior, and got away with that of a long time (with her Dad’s blessing by the way - he is going to jail). Is this a reason to take keys away from all teenagers, who drive with a license responsibly? Of course not.

Now, if you are concerned that people who are seemingly dependent on government to do things are finding it difficult to accept that government cannot even do background checks properly (Dylan Roof and many others), then you really should bring that up with the incompetent government rather than blaming law-abiding people for the actions of criminals by taking away the guns of law-abiding people. It is morally illogical to equate the law-abiding with criminals solely based on the instrument they are holding in their hands.

This illogical moral relativism is not lost on people and that is why more people are buying more guns and ignoring others who want to treat them as if they are automatic criminals if they have a gun. I do believe some gun buying is reflexive against this silly idea that anyone with a gun is dangerous. Good people naturally take personal offense to that.

70

Sadly, there’s no point discussing the issue of guns. As noted earlier, if dead little kids won’t get through, no amount of civil discourse will do so.

71

It’s the mind of gun owners (or gun thieves) that commit such acts that is the problem.

72

I think there can still be some progress on reasonable gun controls. I think that because of – stay with me – the Confederate flag issue. After that mass shooting, people moved to de-normalize the Confederate flag. Just as plenty of people saw the flag as benign enough because some Southerners really did see it as a heritage thing, not a hate thing, I am hoping that people will de-normalize the incredible number of guns. I didn’t know the history of the “resurrection” of the flag in the '50s and '60s. It took that shooting for me to really educate myself. I’m hoping that something will lead to that kind of introspection in relation to guns.

Did anyone else see the 17 graphics on Vox.com? I thought nos. 1 and 6 were particularly compelling. We just have too many guns, and I think eventually people will get fed up. I also was disheartened when Newtown resulted in no meaningful changes, but I have hope.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

73

I guess it depends on whom defines reasonable. Ah, the devil is in the details.

However, the more salient issue is this: If an inept government cannot even properly implement and successfully enforce the gun control laws it currently has in place, what is the point of another 100 laws, which it cannot be enforced anyway? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I look at it this way - when government can figure out how not to give away $5B+ in tax refunds to people who should not get them, i.e., being able to competently identify who is who, then maybe the government can figure out how to stop criminals from getting guns. Until then, it is up to the private citizen to make sure he can defend his and his family’s lives, just in case. For those who choose to surrender defacto to the criminals ahead of time and get shot without mounting an effective defense, well, that is their business. I will pray for them after at their funerals.

74

Sadly, I don’t think there is anything that could have stopped this person from committing those two murders. No proposed gun control law would have stopped him - he would have passed a background check. I don’t believe he saw any mental health professional who could have warned or intervened. There were few red flags before he snapped.

75

I am not arguing that any gun control measures would have kept this shooting from happening. However, is there a way that the reporter could have mounted an “effective defense” had she been packing? At some point we just have to be able to trust that under most circumstances people aren’t going to just walk up to us and shoot us. It seems to me like shooting people has become the go to solution for all of life’s problems. I don’t think the general discourse and tone helps.

76

In this case, no.

Obviously, having a gun does not help in every case, but at least you got a chance in this case if he misses. He was going after those two people and pretty much impossible to stop anyway.

However, this case is quite different than the TOO MANY cases where people were essentially target practice because of some inane virtue of marking themselves as being in gun-free zones. It seems so lost on people that these criminals do not choose to mass attack where known guns exist.

Therefore, it begs the question, “Why in the world would the response to these events be to give criminals even more helpless targets by openly disarming more people, as the only people disarmed would be those who obey the law?” Now that would be an officially sanctioned suicidal public policy. People, who want a chance to defend their loved ones, instinctively get that logic as a bit warped.

And interestingly, this guy shot himself when he knew other guns, i.e., the police, were on to him. He did not battle it out with them. Same with the guy in Newtown - killed himself when police arrived. Same with the VTech shooting - the guy walked around for 20 minutes without resistance killing students, then killed himself when he knew other guns (police) showed up. They are looking for people who are purposely disarmed and yelling to the top of their breathe that they are so.

Very true, but ironically, this is exactly what criminals are depending on people to think and thus not be ready for them. And exactly why when that trust is violated there should be a back-up system that is fast and efficient.

It is important to understand the mindset of people who conceal carry. They view the gun pretty much like the emergency brakes on a car. Sometimes the normal system fails, and it is important to have an immediate back-up. And they do not walk around on pins and needles. I totally forget I have a gun when I am wearing it. No need to remember unless it must be accessed for emergency purposes. Same as no one even thinks of his car’s emergency brakes, until required.

77

When Dad was in the early stages of dementia, a particular lobbying group would call him up a couple times a week and scare money out of him. They had him convinced that his life was in danger from all sorts of bogeymen. For a few months we worried that he’d shoot Mom as an intruder. We were able to get him disarmed before he progressed too far, but all throughout this time there were the same phone calls… Eventually, I believe she’d unplug the phone when she went outside, it was that bad. If she answered they’d hang up (she’d asked them to stop once, so…)
They called once when I was home (I affirmed that I was Mr 50N, but didn’t clarify), and we were able to get it stopped. Newton may have been a factor. It is also possible I mentioned lawsuit. Whatever, I was watching him die day by day and this kind of nonsense fades over time by comparison.

There was a short window where he could have had enough wits to sniff out some keys while Mom was mowing or whatever and gone down the road and purchased one - perfectly legally. That’s just unfathomable. It is UNREASONABLE to have it so.

I miss my Dad and regularly curse those who made his last years with us (mentally) so fearful for him, and the national codpiece association that hired them.

78

Nobody can mount a defense when someone has decided to target them and is lying in wait to kill them. I saw the killer’s execution of two people on Twitter before it was taken down. He came up from behind. They were busy doing their jobs, focused on doing a good job and he opened fire , no way they even saw him or could have anticipated this could have happened. And yes, these killers you mention from this and other mass killings end up dead. That is usually part of the plan, after making some kind of statement , as warped as that statement might be.

79

Ironically, I used to read that organizations magazine regularly for about 30 years and watched the focus change from sport to fearmongering. When I see their talking points thrown around like original research … Well, it’s pretty much the same feeling I have for the well dressed young men who knock on our door periodically. I’ve read their book, and I’ve seen these data before.

80

@MaineLonghorn Sorry for your family’s loss. Very sad.

@saintfan <<< I take exception to this. I happened to be working with a client who has a developmental disability and a treated mental illness when this came on the news. She commented on it and said something to the effect of “what’s wrong with people? He must have been really unbalanced.” Yes - whatever it was that unbalanced him he was unbalanced. There are many high functioning people living with treated mental illness of one kind and another. They also usually don’t go around shooting people. The shooter WAS a disgruntled employee who had anger management issues.<<<

Of course, many/most mentally ill people do not kill people (or themselves). But, the fact that the mentally ill client that you were with readily commented with her comment really doesn’t say much.

The same mentally-ill person can be truly disgusted by someone else’s horrific behavior, and see no sense in it and can have a logical conversation about how wrong and terrible it is, but then do the same or similar behavior at another time. (not suggesting that your client is that way.)