Another Fatal Shooting in a movie theater

[DeadPresident]

Seriously. It won't be like a video game. And when the police/SWAT team DO arrive, how the hell are they going to tell who's the bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun?

It's awful, but every time we blame a (white male) terrorist's "mental illness" for his actions, it gets even worse. Being bipolar or depressed doesn't make you a hateful misogynist. Gimme a break.

But I also think that there should psychiatric tests before you're allowed to own a gun. Especially if you have a history of suicidal tendencies, alcoholism (like, if you're been arrested for it), or impulsive, dangerous actions (again, if you've been arrested for it).

What's worse than blaming mental illness after an incident like this is erasing that it's a problem. In any extremely violent act some form of mental illness (or at least emotional grievance) invariably plays a role. No emotionally or psychologically stable human being shoots up a theater or church, becomes a suicide bomber, or an arsonist.

There is no time when some psychological variable isn't a factor in extreme cases like this. This dichotomy of "white guy mental illness"/"non white guy terrorist or thug" thing needs to get eliminated and people should stop even including it in their discourse. Every human being's behaviour is the convergence of multiple factors, it's figuring out how those factors interact with one another that'll solve a problem, not assuming that addressing or removing a single aspect is a solution.

Being depressed or bipolar might not make someone a hateful misogynist, but it sure as **** makes it more likely that people will displace their anger onto something they can easily identify.

 

[Anita18]

What's worse than blaming mental illness after an incident like this is erasing that it's a problem. In any extremely violent act some form of mental illness (or at least emotional grievance) invariably plays a role. No emotionally or psychologically stable human being shoots up a theater or church, becomes a suicide bomber, or an arsonist.

There is no time when some psychological variable isn't a factor in extreme cases like this. This dichotomy of "white guy mental illness"/"non white guy terrorist or thug" thing needs to get eliminated and people should stop even including it in their discourse. Every human being's behaviour is the convergence of multiple factors, it's figuring out how those factors interact with one another that'll solve a problem, not assuming that addressing or removing a single aspect is a solution.

Being depressed or bipolar might not make someone a hateful misogynist, but it sure as **** makes it more likely that people will displace their anger onto something they can easily identify.

But being hateful is not a symptom of either depression or bipolar disorder. Or any one mental illness. It may make people handle their anger in ways that are unhealthy, but it doesn't make them violent or hateful toward an entire segment of the population.

But yes, being violent and hateful IS a symptom of something very unhealthy and wrong going on in their brain, but it's not necessarily from a defined mental illness. Having a mental illness does not excuse you from premeditating the murder of multiple people. In very VERY rare cases it does, but that's only if you honestly had no idea what you were doing was wrong. That's the legal definition of insanity, but it's a very rare successful defense.

I believe in a balance of rehabilitation and societal protection. Yes, they need help. But they should ALSO be punished for hurting and killing others. Getting them help would also make it easier to handle them in prison.

 

[DeadPresident]

But being hateful is not a symptom of either depression or bipolar disorder. Or any one mental illness. It may make people handle their anger in ways that are unhealthy, but it doesn't make them violent or hateful toward an entire segment of the population.

But yes, being violent and hateful IS a symptom of something very unhealthy and wrong going on in their brain, but it's not necessarily from a defined mental illness. Having a mental illness does not excuse you from premeditating the murder of multiple people. In very VERY rare cases it does, but that's only if you honestly had no idea what you were doing was wrong. That's the legal definition of insanity, but it's a very rare successful defense.

I believe in a balance of rehabilitation and societal protection. Yes, they need help. But they should ALSO be punished for hurting and killing others. Getting them help would also make it easier to handle them in prison.

Very few people are hateful, people generally behave hatefully. That's usually going to be down to some unresolved emotional issue. Perhaps the tag "mental illness" needs to be dropped and it should just be about emotional wellbeing. There aren't two poles with mental health on one end and mental illness on the other. It's a continuum. In the case of depression, a personality disorder or schizophrenia it's not the case of someone being anything, but rather that the condition makes it more likely that they may handle emotional phenomena badly. Then, if we're laboring under the belief that we live in a moral society, it's as much a community's fault for something like this happening as it is the individuals' who perpetrates it. Nobody is an island, people should start giving a **** about their fellow man's wellbeing.

We can talk about curing the symptoms all day long, and that's where it should start. But, ultimately, the goal should be socializing and equipping people so that the condition (in the systemic, metaphoric sense) never manifests.

 

[regwec]

But, again, the wholesale reinvention of American society to make people nicer would be very difficult and very time consuming, and it won't happen. Though I am certain that mental health ought to be taken much more seriously, this line of argument seems like an evasive one adopted by gun enthusiasts, who are effectively demanding that the world should be fundamentally altered so that they can continue to play with their guns without interference or censure.

Limiting access to guns and ammunition is something that can actually be done.

 

[chamber-music]

So the solution is people who are poorly, if at all, trained should carry a gun around in the off chance someone might decide to shoot up the place they are in? And everyone else with a gun will know just which person with the gun drawn to shoot, right?

Recipe for a bloodbath.

 

[DeadPresident]

But, again, the wholesale reinvention of American society to make people nicer would be very difficult and very time consuming, and it won't happen. Though I am certain that mental health ought to be taken much more seriously, this line of argument seems like an evasive one adopted by gun enthusiasts, who are effectively demanding that the world should be fundamentally altered so that they can continue to play with their guns without interference or censure.

Limiting access to guns and ammunition is something that can actually be done.

Possibly the most depressing thing I've ever seen you post. But, true.

I'm not a gun enthusiast, if that's what you were implying though, but both aspects need to be considered. Because they're important, not because they serve either side of a dichotomous argument.

 

[moviedoors]

ol this line of argument seems like an evasive one adopted by gun enthusiasts, who are effectively demanding that the world should be fundamentally altered so that they can continue to play with their guns without interference or censure.

Thank you! Nailed it!

 

[DeadPresident]

At the risk of offending people, whoever thinks this is about one argument vs another single argument is a moron.

There are multiple issues at hand.

 

[Matt Mortem]

But being hateful is not a symptom of either depression or bipolar disorder. Or any one mental illness. It may make people handle their anger in ways that are unhealthy, but it doesn't make them violent or hateful toward an entire segment of the population.

But yes, being violent and hateful IS a symptom of something very unhealthy and wrong going on in their brain, but it's not necessarily from a defined mental illness. Having a mental illness does not excuse you from premeditating the murder of multiple people. In very VERY rare cases it does, but that's only if you honestly had no idea what you were doing was wrong. That's the legal definition of insanity, but it's a very rare successful defense.

I believe in a balance of rehabilitation and societal protection. Yes, they need help. But they should ALSO be punished for hurting and killing others. Getting them help would also make it easier to handle them in prison.

I don't think anyone is saying these killers have an excuse. They absolutely need to do the time and live with the consequences of their crime. Where I'm coming from with the mental health debate is from a preventative stand point. Get the people help before they kill, or at the very least know they have the predisposition towards violent actions and stop them from getting a gun.

As far as people who have hateful rhetoric deep in their bones I don't think there's anything to be done about that. Racism is a disgusting, embarrassing cornerstone of America, historically and in the here and now. Same with misogyny. We'd have to change how people think and where they get their prejudices from. I don't know how one fights hatred in the minds of the masses.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Being depressed or bipolar might not make someone a hateful misogynist, but it sure as **** makes it more likely that people will displace their anger onto something they can easily identify.

Disagreed. Plenty of Serial Killers and murders had neither Depression or Bipolar.

I'm willing to be their are equal amounts of mental illness killers to those without mental illness

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

A drunk is much more likely to kill someone than the mentally ill.

But the mentalli ill make a better boogey man for society to stigmatize.

 

[KevanG]

Which is scarier? A normal person that can go on a rampage at any time due to a few drinks or some guy who is better than the normal guy if he takes a few pills a week because he knows what it's like to lose control?

 

[DeadPresident]

A drunk is much more likely to kill someone than the mentally ill.

But the mentalli ill make a better boogey man for society to stigmatize.

Yep, and yet somehow alcohol is still a socially sanctioned substance to consume. That **** honestly baffles me. If this mediocre species survives, I'm sure like 300 years from now people will look back and go "Wait...so those folks frequently imbibed a substance that they knew impairs all forms of cognitive functioning, and then were surprised when people got murdered or killed in car accidents?".

But unfortunately Johnnie Walker and Smirnoff need to make their money, and no politician or NGO has the balls to wage a war against alcohol. Not when it's lining a bunch of people's pockets.

 

[KevanG]

It'll be like using mercury and lead for everything a few hundred years ago except we know better.

Futurama was right, they will call us the Stupid Ages.

 

[DeadPresident]

Yeah, or asbestos. Now, everyone goes "Oh lolololol they were so dumb back then using asbestos in heaters and ceilings and ****...lemme go drink some vodka".

There is nothing more hilariously panic inducing than the lack of insight the average human being has.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't advocate prohibition.

We tried it and it didn't work.

 

[DeadPresident]

I don't advocate prohibition.

We tried it and it didn't work.

Prohibition only addressed the actual use and availability of the product, it didn't address the socialization around it. Which is ultimately what any change or adjustment in human behaviour comes from. Alcohol is still believed to be relatively harmless by probably 95% of the global population. It ain't about depriving people of anything, but educating (and people raising their kids) to take the dangers and risks very seriously.

We're already on a slippery slope with marijuana, people are probably going to erase the fact that for certain individuals it has massive risks and just go down the "it's natural, it can't do any harm man" route.

Interestingly, the gun debate has the same parallels. People only want to address the availability and use of the product - not the socialization surrounding it.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Prohibition only addressed the actual use and availability of the product, it didn't address the socialization around it. Which is ultimately what any change or adjustment in human behaviour comes from. Alcohol is still believed to be relatively harmless by probably 95% of the global population. It ain't about depriving people of anything, but educating (and people raising their kids) to take the dangers and risks very seriously.

We're already on a slippery slope with marijuana, people are probably going to erase the fact that for certain individuals it has massive risks and just go down the "it's natural, it can't do any harm man" route.

Interestingly, the gun debate has the same parallels. People only want to address the availability and use of the product - not the socialization surrounding it.

Marijuana isn't harmless but it's far safer than alcohol, tobacco or firearms.

Far safer.

 

[DeadPresident]

Marijuana isn't harmless but it's far safer than alcohol, tobacco or firearms.

Far safer.

That depends on who is being talked about. This blanket notion that "Marijuana is safer" is exceptionally dangerous. It's safer than a lot of things, for particular people. For other people with certain brain chemistries even isolated Marijuana usage can cause noticeable impairment. The effect of marijuana on people with certain psychological and physical conditions isn't very well researched or understood. So broadly stating it's "Safer than X, Y or Z" is quite premature in the long run. Sure, immediately, I'd agree. Smoking a joint is safer than drinking four beers right now. But who the **** knows what it does after chronic use if you're somebody that's epileptic, or with a respiratory disease?

Same as with alcohol, a lot of people can use it moderately and relatively free of risk. Unless of course they're genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to it. Then it'll wreck their ****ing lives. Same thing applies to marijuana, perhaps for people with an anxiety order it'll be beneficial. Perhaps for people with mood disorders it'll exacerbate their condition.

Unfortunately what's happening with all the pro-marijuana bull**** though is people are recommending and advocating it across the board. At the end of the day it's like any other substance, it has benefits in some cases, and detriments in others. Something I see time and again on social media is people claiming "I've been smoking weed for years and nothing has happened to me!" like one person's experience negates risks for everyone else in the population

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That depends on who is being talked about. This blanket notion that "Marijuana is safer" is exceptionally dangerous. It's safer than a lot of things, for particular people. For other people with certain brain chemistries even isolated Marijuana usage can cause noticeable impairment. The effect of marijuana on people with certain psychological and physical conditions isn't very well researched or understood. So broadly stating it's "Safer than X, Y or Z" is quite premature in the long run. Sure, immediately, I'd agree. Smoking a joint is safer than drinking four beers right now. But who the **** knows what it does after chronic use if you're somebody that's epileptic, or with a respiratory disease?

Same as with alcohol, a lot of people can use it moderately and relatively free of risk. Unless of course they're genetically predisposed to becoming addicted to it. Then it'll wreck their ****ing lives. Same thing applies to marijuana, perhaps for people with an anxiety order it'll be beneficial. Perhaps for people with mood disorders it'll exacerbate their condition.

Unfortunately what's happening with all the pro-marijuana bull**** though is people are recommending and advocating it across the board. At the end of the day it's like any other substance, it has benefits in some cases, and detriments in others. Something I see time and again on social media is people claiming "I've been smoking weed for years and nothing has happened to me!" like one person's experience negates risks for everyone else in the population

What a load of bull.

Cannabis isn't just some newly invented substance. People have been using it for medicine for thousands of years. We know the side effects better than we know the long term effects of many prescription drugs. You act like there has never been health studies on cannabis. There have been plenty and little has been revealed that helps the prohibitionist argument. Instead more and more medicinal benefits are discovered.

Cannabis is far safer than alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms (ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL). It's not even debateable.

Alcohol kills 88,000 Americans a year.

Cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans a year.

Guns kill 30,000 Americans a year.

Google number of Americans killed by cannabis in the entire 20th century.

Then tell me it deserves to be outlawed more than the three things above.

 

[KevanG]

Because it's bad?

 

[DeadPresident]

What a load of bull.

Cannabis isn't just some newly invented substance. People have been using it for medicine for thousands of years. We know the side effects better than we know the long term effects of many prescription drugs. You act like there has never been health studies on cannabis. There have been plenty and little has been revealed that helps the prohibitionist argument. Instead more and more medicinal benefits are discovered.

Cannabis is far safer than alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms (ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL). It's not even debateable.

Alcohol kills 88,000 Americans a year.

Cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans a year.

Guns kill 30,000 Americans a year.

Google number of Americans killed by cannabis in the entire 20th century.

Then tell me it deserves to be outlawed more than the three things above.

Uh...where did I dispute any of what you're posting? Where did I say anything about advocating prohibition of marijuana? My post is about education and awareness. Just because some of marijuana's side effects are understood doesn't mean all its interactions with other chemicals, like prescription drugs everyone is on, are fully understood. Nor does it mean that marijuana's effects on various physiological and psychological conditions are fully understood. Claiming that cannabis is healthy as a blanket statement is false, claiming that it has health benefits in certain circumstances is valid.

When did you start using marijuana? You're getting awfully defensive about your precious drug considering I didn't say anything about trying to criminalize it. My post literally advocated more specificity about its interactions, that's it.

Strangely enough something doesn't necessarily have to kill anyone to be harmful. Perhaps it just has to...say...be found to be comorbid with onset of schizophrenia in certain instances?

 

[regwec]

Cannabis is far safer than alcohol, cigarettes, and firearms (ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL). It's not even debateable.

Alcohol kills 88,000 Americans a year.

Cigarettes kill 500,000 Americans a year.

Guns kill 30,000 Americans a year.

Google number of Americans killed by cannabis in the entire 20th century.

Then tell me it deserves to be outlawed more than the three things above.

Those figures say nothing about the statistical dangers of an individual's use, however. Applying the same comparison would lead you to believe that crossing the road is much more dangerous than partaking in a boxing match.

I am in favour of legalizing all narcotics which are not pharmacologically addictive, but I am also resistant to attempts to stigmatise alcohol. My view is that we need to relearn the art of drinking socially and in moderation. Wine is one of my foremost enthusiasms, and I think it stands alone as a gastronomic joy and a social lubricant, but it and other intoxicating drinks have been victim to the demise of restraint as a social norm. They are not alone in this: I think the proliferation of sex and sexuality in the public sphere has made it less exciting as a topic, and less of a treat.

And now I sound very old indeed!

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Strangely enough something doesn't necessarily have to kill anyone to be harmful. Perhaps it just has to...say...be found to be comorbid with onset of schizophrenia in certain instances?

Cannabis use has sky rocketed in the last 50 years.

The rate of schizophrenia has stayed steady at 1% since the 1960's.

So the rate of people who get schizophrenia is not going up despite much more cannabis use from the population.

Prohibitionist have been trying to use studies to prove cannabis is dangerous for many, many decades. And they can find little to justify keeping it illegal.

President Nixon famously demanded a study on cannabis to prove how bad it was for society. He was really confident the study would show that cannabis was destructive and dangerous. The scientist concluded the drug was relatively safe. Nixon simply swept the study under the rug and pretended it didn't exist. Prohibitionist continue to do the same to this day.

It's ridiculous that a drug with dozens of serious medicinal benefits. thousands of industrial uses and which never killed anyone is treated worse than things that kill tens of thousand of Americans each year (like fast food. prescription drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and guns). End the hypocrisy and legalize the damn plant.