Seven dead in drive by California shootings

[TubbaBlubba]

Killing a bunch of people is indicative of a killer. It's not, in and of itself, indicative of "crazy". There has to be something more to it for that.

This. We all love to dismiss killers as "crazy people". But not all of them are "crazy" in the way we think (psychotic, delusional), not all types of "crazy" are equal, and "crazy" is never sufficient on its own.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

This. We all love to dismiss killers as "crazy people". But not all of them are "crazy" in the way we think (psychotic, delusional), not all types of "crazy" are equal, and "crazy" is never sufficient on its own.

I think we can safely say that killers are sociopathic, unless you think killing is a rational response to any societal interaction.

 

[Cain]

This horrible tragedy could've been averted if he'd received a sex prize for being a nice guy. As usual, women are to blame.

 

[SimplyAghast]

Killing a bunch of people is indicative of a killer. It's not, in and of itself, indicative of "crazy". There has to be something more to it for that.

For surely the fourth time, we can blame misogyny because he gave it as his own motivation for the killing. If a guy confesses to killing his wife and her lover because he found them cheating, I would likewise need to see a pretty substantial reason to reject that as a motive.

So what's the natural conclusion of your assertion? If we're going to blame this insanity on "misogyny," surely something must be changed about society and how the genders interact, right?

Further, Mark David Chapman made it VERY clear that he killed John Lennon because he saw himself as Holden Caulfield and was charged with eliminating a "phony" like Lennon. That's what Chapman said, so we should just believe him, right?

He didn't kill Lennon because he's nuttier than a PayDay bar. It wasn't because he was drinking heavily or was having hallucinations and talking to invisible people.

Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon because of what Holden says in the book. Chapman even signed his copy, "This is my statement" and signed Caulfield's name instead of his own. Chapman even read a paragraph from the book at his sentencing.

So who in the world would blame Chapman's extreme mental illness for the murder when Chapman explained very clearly why he did what he did.

What's to be done? Eliminating all copies of the book?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I don't want to dismiss the seriousness of the topic, but I read the book and thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious ass. Was I wrong?

 

[SimplyAghast]

I don't want to dismiss the seriousness of the topic, but I read the book and thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious ass. Was I wrong?

Well, it's literature, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean, so long as you can support your assertion with evidence from the book.

But yeah, a lot of people see it that way.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think we can safely say that killers are sociopathic, unless you think killing is a rational response to any societal interaction.

How can you "safely say that"? There are plenty of non-sociopaths who react "non-rationally" to societial interaction. I could see sufficient feelings of resentment amounting to murder in some people without those people necessarily being devoid of compassion.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Offending

"It has been suggested that psychopaths tend to commit more "instrumental" violence than "reactive" violence. One conclusion in this regard was made by a 2002 study of homicide offenders, which reported that the homicides committed by psychopaths were almost always (93.3%) primarily instrumental, while about half (48.4%) of those committed by non-psychopaths were.[20] However, contrary to the equating of this to mean "in cold blood", more than a third of the homicides by psychopaths involved emotional reactivity as well. In addition, the non-psychopaths still accounted for most of the instrumental homicides, because most of these murderers were not psychopaths. In any case, FBI profilers indicate that serious victim injury is generally an emotional offense, and some research supports this, at least with regard to sexual offending. One study has found more serious offending by non-psychopaths on average than by psychopaths (e.g. more homicides versus more armed robbery and property offenses) and another that the Affective facet of PCL-R predicted reduced offense seriousness.[1]"

 

[Gallstones]

If those six innocent victims had simply been armed, this would have a different outcome. All they had to do was go and take a one-day CCW course, buy a gun, spend some time on gun forums, and they would be alive today. Indeed, at the first sign of trouble, they all could have sprung into action.

Uhm yeah, actually what might have been effective in this case, as in every similar case, would be stringent intervention by someone paying attention.

I have been keeping up on this incident most of the day and what the REAL firearms/personal protection experts have said is that having a firearm would not have stopped this incident from occurring.

Not everything can be prevented, particularly once it is underway.

Have you anything other than ignorant bigotry to offer, anything intelligent, well reasoned and properly thought out?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well, it's literature, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean, so long as you can support your assertion with evidence from the book.

But yeah, a lot of people see it that way.

I thought the entire book was sociopathic. I did read it cover to cover, but it left me empty. A good book should leave a reader with questions. That book was hollow.

If it was an experiment for making a protagonist have no common objective, it succeeded. If people actually look at this novel for guidance, se la vie.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So what's the natural conclusion of your assertion? If we're going to blame this insanity on "misogyny," surely something must be changed about society and how the genders interact, right?

Further, Mark David Chapman made it VERY clear that he killed John Lennon because he saw himself as Holden Caulfield and was charged with eliminating a "phony" like Lennon. That's what Chapman said, so we should just believe him, right?

He didn't kill Lennon because he's nuttier than a PayDay bar. It wasn't because he was drinking heavily or was having hallucinations and talking to invisible people.

Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon because of what Holden says in the book. Chapman even signed his copy, "This is my statement" and signed Caulfield's name instead of his own. Chapman even read a paragraph from the book at his sentencing.

So who in the world would blame Chapman's extreme mental illness for the murder when Chapman explained very clearly why he did what he did.

What's to be done? Eliminating all copies of the book?

Um... Mark Chapman was a paranoid schizophrenic. Is there any evidence that Rodger was psychotic?

 

[Checkmite]

So what's the natural conclusion of your assertion? If we're going to blame this insanity on "misogyny," surely something must be changed about society and how the genders interact, right?

Further, Mark David Chapman made it VERY clear that he killed John Lennon because he saw himself as Holden Caulfield and was charged with eliminating a "phony" like Lennon. That's what Chapman said, so we should just believe him, right?

He didn't kill Lennon because he's nuttier than a PayDay bar. It wasn't because he was drinking heavily or was having hallucinations and talking to invisible people.

Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon because of what Holden says in the book. Chapman even signed his copy, "This is my statement" and signed Caulfield's name instead of his own. Chapman even read a paragraph from the book at his sentencing.

So who in the world would blame Chapman's extreme mental illness for the murder when Chapman explained very clearly why he did what he did.

What's to be done? Eliminating all copies of the book?

Don't you see that this is a completely different situation? Hallucinations and disorders of reference are unambiguous signs of mental illness; if the guy literally thought he was a character from this book, and that as that character he was required to kill someone, that becomes a pretty compelling reason to say that yes, it's quite reasonable to pin this one on his mental illness.

But if you've got a case where you have this guy who has never had sex, and the fact that no woman has ever had sex with him has made him so enraged that he finally decides to take it out on a sorority building full of women, that's a little different. He does not mention he has any hallucinations. He can't be said to be delusional if it's true that women weren't having sex with him (unless of course it's shown that he actually was having sex with women and just didn't recognize it or believe that's what was happening). He doesn't indicate any reference delusions like believing he was a character in a book or a robot or that all the women he wanted to kill were automaton imposters of real women or something. I don't think I've seen anything yet in this case that suggests an effect of any mental illness that was contributory to his decision to do what he did.

 

[Gallstones]

Why didn't he use a kitchen knife?

No, gun nuts, I'm not joyful about this. It's a tragedy, a horrible tragedy and I wish it would never have happened. But as long as you guys want to shoot guns, this will continue. I'm sure you'll all sleep well tonight.

I hope so. I've had a few good night's sleep--in a row!. I don't get many of those.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

How can you "safely say that"? There are plenty of non-sociopaths who react "non-rationally" to societial interaction. I could see sufficient feelings of resentment amounting to murder in some people without those people necessarily being devoid of compassion.

I misrepresented myself. Of course there are rational reasons for violence. I meant violence in response to normal human interaction.

 

[Checkmite]

I don't want to dismiss the seriousness of the topic, but I read the book and thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious ass. Was I wrong?

Thank you. I always feel so alone when people gush about that damn book.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I misrepresented myself. Of course there are rational reasons for violence. I meant violence in response to normal human interaction.

Yes, but what is your evidence that people who respond violently to normal human interaction are all sociopaths? Given the emotionally charged nature of such violence, in fact, it even seems unlikely that sociopaths would commit it.


ETA: Yes, Catcher in the Rye is an obnoxious book. Well-written in some aspects, but obnoxious.

 

[Puppycow]

The guy seems extremely annoying.

What a sense of entitlement!

Must be something other than his looks. Probably because he's a gigantic creep with a huge sense of entitlement, overinflated ego and anger issues.

Still, if he put in a little bit of effort he probably could have gotten laid.

 

[SimplyAghast]

Don't you see that this is a completely different situation? Hallucinations and disorders of reference are unambiguous signs of mental illness; if the guy literally thought he was a character from this book, and that as that character he was required to kill someone, that becomes a pretty compelling reason to say that yes, it's quite reasonable to pin this one on his mental illness.

But if you've got a case where you have this guy who has never had sex, and the fact that no woman has ever had sex with him has made him so enraged that he finally decides to take it out on a sorority building full of women, that's a little different. He does not mention he has any hallucinations. He can't be said to be delusional if it's true that women weren't having sex with him (unless of course it's shown that he actually was having sex with women and just didn't recognize it or believe that's what was happening). He doesn't indicate any reference delusions like believing he was a character in a book or a robot or that all the women he wanted to kill were automaton imposters of real women or something. I don't think I've seen anything yet in this case that suggests an effect of any mental illness that was contributory to his decision to do what he did.

Well, he deliberately killed and injured men, too.

I'm not a member of any MRA/PUA community, nor do I consume their media. I just don't like the guilt by association fallacy that I am guessing will come. (Well, PZ has already committed it.)

I'm not a Tea Partier, but I don't think the Tea Party is entirely to blame for that guy who shot up that TV station.

I'm offended when someone blames something like this on "whiteness" (which does happen! I've blocked friends who said this!), just as I would be offended by someone blaming minorities for some societal ill.

We can certainly agree to disagree, but do you see my point?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What a sense of entitlement!

Must be something other than his looks. Probably because he's a gigantic creep with a huge sense of entitlement, overinflated ego and anger issues.

Still, if he put in a little bit of effort he probably could have gotten laid.

Not to mention rich, with a father who is a successful director. Yes, he must have had some pretty crazy social disabilities.

 

[Checkmite]

There's a press conference going on now.