Self-Hating Rich Kid Goes On Shooting Rampage, NTers Write Paragraphs Arguing About It

[dipsetgeneral]

Humanity.... Just look at what type of people walk the same ground as us. Utter filth.

 

[createdestroy]

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. 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.

 

[hand2handking]

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.

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.  

 

[leavemeglazzies]

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.
 

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.

 

[ayzee]

 
You're either trolling or...

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

Glad I'm not the only one who sees the trend.

 

[createdestroy]

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.  

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.

 

[hand2handking]

 
Glad I'm not the 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?

 

[createdestroy]

 
Glad I'm not the 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?

1. 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

 

[hand2handking]

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

 

[DCAllAfrican]

Tariq did a show on this topic. Good listen.

 

[createdestroy]

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

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...

 

[dankenstien88]

i didnt say he woke up one morning and started blasting, i said the gun could provide him with that opportunity.

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 also never said he didnt have a mental illness, i said it wasnt the factor for this event.

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.

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.

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.

you just agreed with me that it does exist.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What? I'm having a hard time making sense of that grammatical tragedy of a sentence.

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?

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.

as far as the great equalizer, there are alternatives to guns that can deter criminals as well

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.

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.

guns arent the real issue in that case, if we're getting rid of guns, its ammunition.  

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

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.

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.
 

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.

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.

1. 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

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

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.

 

[ayzee]

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?

 

[fontaine]

I thought he killed the chicks because he didn't get yambs...?

 

[EddieDoyers]

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.

 

[createdestroy]

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 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

 

[EddieDoyers]

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

 

[hand2handking]

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...

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.  

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.

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.

see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.  

 

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?

so why are you debating with me if we agree that its not the sole reason?

i never said anything other than that

 

[createdestroy]

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...

 

[hand2handking]

 

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)

 

[createdestroy]

 

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)

so are you saying that being mentally ill doesn't absolve you from blame
or are you saying mental illness does not exist?

 

[dankenstien88]

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...

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.  

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.

Just stop.

Nobody is blaming Rodgers actions solely on mental illness, but you can not ignore that the man was obviously mentally ill.

see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.

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.

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.

Again you are changing your statements. Quit while you're behind.

theres a difference between what i said and what you said. a factor means one of many. the factor means the single, motivating reason.

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.

yes but the basis for ptsd is that experience. we dont all have traumatic experiences, so we dont all have mental issues.

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 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.

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.

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.

Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

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. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
Even anti-gun researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home. [9] * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [1 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.[11]
Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."[12]
Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. [14]
Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport. [15]

Criminals avoid armed citizens

Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]
Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed. [17]
Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and, * Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%. [18] Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
Orlando, FL. the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88%, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation. [19]
Nationwide. the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [2 Justice Department study:
3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." [21]
74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."[22] * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." [23]

your idea of guns has been perverted because so many people die from gun violence.

As I have proven in my last comment, gun do save more lives than they take.

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.

CC laws have been proven to reduce crime in areas where implemented as it puts potential victims on equal footing with their attackers. Criminals are much less likely to commit violent crimes in places where they know the victim could be legally armed.

There is no way to regulate illegal gun use... criminals do not adhere to the law in the first place therefor gun legislation will only have an effect on legal abiding citizens.

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?

Guns do allow for a more civilized and balanced society. Prior to personal firearms there was no middle class and people lived in absolute poverty in monarchical societies. When people are armed it puts everyone on equal footing. 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.

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

Again you are twisting words to suit your agenda. It's not about guns being too profitable and loosing money to other countries. It's about acknowledging the fact that prohibition of any item will lead to a profitable black market and more crime.

 

[hand2handking]

                                                                        so are you saying that being mentally ill doesn't absolve you from blame or are you saying mental illness does not exist?

yes that is what im saying. unless someone is suffering from a  mentally debilitating disease then yes they are not absolved.

 
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.

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.

 Quote:

see all of this attacking me isnt necessary.

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.

no its one thing to disagree quite another to say im in high school or that im a fool.

 Quote:

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.

Again you are changing your statements. Quit while you're behind.

i thought it was clear the difference between planning a bombing and plotting a shooting spree but you asked for elaboration.  

theres a difference between what i said and what you said. a factor means one of many. the factor means the single, motivating reason.

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.

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?

 

yes but the basis for ptsd is that experience. we dont all have traumatic experiences, so we dont all have mental issues.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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? 

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

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.

 

[flaminhotcheeto]

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."

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.

Didnt read lol

Seriously though, that was a lot of quoting and responding there haha.

-edit-  Holy crap the past page or two have an insane amount of quoting and responding Lol.

 

[dankenstien88]

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.

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.

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?

No. A factor is a factor... period. The term you are looking for is greatest common divisor.

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.

There isn't any conclusion. I just corrected you letting you know that PTSD is a mental illness that can happen to anyone. You said it wasn't. It is also not the only late onset mental illness that can effect people.

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've explained this thoroughly, just because something is illegal does not mean people will no longer have access to it. Banning gun by law is one thing...eliminating the existence of them is another.

What a minute, gun crime is suppose to be at zero. England as banned owning almost every gun type in the world. But gun crime is at an all time high. I wonder how the criminals get a hold of the guns? Anti gun logic states that guns are bought in gun shops with strict control right?

According to gun control supporter dogma—“more guns means more crime”—the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and “large” ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned—AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes. Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS’ inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in 2008. More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly.

Restrictions do not prevent violent crime, but rather prevent law-abiding citizens from properly defending themselves against the perpetrators. A major issue with anti-gun legislation is that it is extremely difficult to enforce. While most civilians would turn in their newly illicit weapons, many criminals will not. This then creates a situation in which criminals are able to out-arm their innocent, law-abiding victims. Referring back to Figure 1 once again, not only is there a lack of a positive correlation between gun supply and gun violence, but it is also evident that as the supply of these weapons increases, the rate of violent crime decreases.

Although correlations do not always lead directly to causation, this trend helps shed light on the fact that lawmakers should not remain fixated over the sheer quantity of weapons, but rather who holds these weapons. According to the Washington Post, the vast majority of violent criminals are diagnosed with some form of mental illness. In fact, many past studies have pointed to the conclusion that “people with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime.” (Appleby, 2002). Thus, because of the connection between deteriorating mental health and the rise in violent crime, it would be beneficial to use mental stability as a major criteria in determining which individuals will be considered fit to possess firearms.

In fact, the federal government has recently started keeping a list of those individuals with a violent criminal background, along with mental health records of those persons. These public records are then checked when those particular individuals attempt to purchase firearms through conventional gun vendors. However, what the government does not keep records of are individuals who are currently being treated for mental ailments, but who have not yet committed a crime (New York Times). Thus, it is crucial that the current federal records expand to include these psychiatric patients as well.

As the graph above highlights, according to the latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

The graph below from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.

An inverse picture appears in UK. As legal gun ownership decreases, violent crime increases.

In addition, the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs in the United States routinely outpaces the number of homicides committed using a rifle. Should US lawmakers introduce urgent legislation to outlaw hammers and baseball bats?

The figures clearly illustrate that rising gun ownership does not cause a rise in violent crime.

Look at Chicago, which in 1982 passed a ban on all handguns except for those registered with the city before the ban was enacted.

Since the handgun ban took effect, the number of murders in Chicago committed using handguns has been 40% higher than before the ban, and has spiked even higher in recent years, proving that the gun ban actually served to cause an increase in violent crime.

In comparison, let’s take a look at Britain, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world. Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466

The figures clearly show that gun control does not reduce violent crime, and in fact only emboldens criminals to use guns illegally – safe in the knowledge that their victims have been disarmed courtesy of government legislation. These figures, not just from America but from other countries around the world, send a clear and consistent message - gun control actually increases violent crime, more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens equals less crime, and only by allowing responsible, law-abiding people to be armed and not by disarming the victims can we hope to prevent or lessen the scale of future tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre.



Harvard Study Reveals That Gun Control Is Counterproductive:
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf