Colorado Springs Shooting

[stringer bell]

I am surprised that a thread wasn't started earlier for this event. Obviously, it is a trajedy for three people to lose their lives, but it also raises issues that will play large in the coming election. Guns, domestic (non-Muslim) terror and attacking a place that the anti-abortion activists have put a big target on--Planned Parenthood.

 

The talking points for the left wing are there:

 

1) Few, if any, restrictions on firearms allow a person not fully sane to have enough firepower to kill dozens, if not more,

 

2) Not every religious zealot says "Ali Akbaa" when committing their acts of senseless violence.

 

3) If myths and exaggerations go unchallenged, legitimate and legal operations can become targets of the aforementioned religious zealots.

 

It isn't the same thing, but in terms of loss of life, this shooting resulted in three deaths, the same number as was lost at the Boston Marathon bombing. I do wonder if three people were killed by an Islamic extremist, how the story would be covered.

[TheLeviathan]

I think this is getting lots of coverage and deservedly so.  This needs to be an issue that gets pressed on Republicans who are stepping up the rhetoric to dangerously stupid levels.  

 

But let's be clear, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism aren't in the same ballpark.  Anyone who makes that comparison almost immediately disqualifies their opinion in my eyes.  It's just absurd.  

 

Let's also be clear on the gun issue, this guy (so far as I know) has no history of documented mental health that would make a difference in gun laws.  Yes, we need less guns, but there is often such a rush by some to tie mental health and guns that they fail to actually check if the facts back them up.

 

This was a horrible act and made for likely horrible political and religious reasons.  Hopefully this hurts the Republicans and their rhetoric and ends some of that madness.

[PseudoSABR]

 

But let's be clear, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism aren't in the same ballpark.  Anyone who makes that comparison almost immediately disqualifies their opinion in my eyes.  It's just absurd.  

 

Let's also be clear on the gun issue, this guy (so far as I know) has no history of documented mental health that would make a difference in gun laws.  Yes, we need less guns, but there is often such a rush by some to tie mental health and guns that they fail to actually check if the facts back them up.

Let's also be clear that reasonable people disagree with your stance on these issues. 

[TheLeviathan]

Well, both seem pretty based in fact.  I suppose a reasonable person could choose to ignore facts, doesn't seem like a good approach to an opinion.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Remind me again which facts you are talking about?

[TheLeviathan]

This murderer was never diagnosed as mentally ill.  At most his neighbors say he was weird.  Any laws designed to stop the mentally ill from getting handguns with the implication this situation would've been stopped is absolutely false.

 

We somehow believe that comments after these situations that someone was "weird" or did strange things equals an actual mental health diagnosis.  It's manipulative and false.

 

Secondly, Christianity has a long and storied history of violence and oppression.  But if we're going to label this "Christian Terorism" and suggest that it in any way rivals the scope of "Islamic Terrorism", that notion is delusional and complete false.  That's just not the reality of the world today.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It sounds like this guy's intent was to kill and strike fear into as many people as possible, but only people of a certain type: supporters, sympathizers, clients etc of Planned Parenthood.

 

I maybe wouldn't label it "Christian terrorism" but it otherwise sounds like another act of domestic terror all the same.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree, it was a horrible act of domestic terrorism.  And I do blame Republican rhetoric in part for it.  That doesn't disagree with anything I said.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Well, both seem pretty based in fact.  I suppose a reasonable person could choose to ignore facts, doesn't seem like a good approach to an opinion.

People interpret facts differently.  I really disdain your ownership of objectivity.  It's really just like your opinion, man.

 

I think its fair game to compare this kind of violence with the violence that took place in France.  I reject that each specific religion is the determining factor; so the comparison isn't between Christianity and Islam, it's between people motivated to commit mass murder and people motivated to commit mass murder.  You might disagree, but the comparison isn't absurd, even though each clearly differ (as you suggest) in scope and organization. 

 

Mental health advocates aren't necessarily exclusively interested in forbidding gun ownership from those diagnosed with mental illness; such advocates want mental health concerns fore-fronted publicly to where people like this (even if this individual suffers from no ailment) won't slip through the cracks, like so many others who left a cookie-crumb trail of crying for help or demonstrating violent tendencies. 

 

Many of us think gun laws would go a long way to curbing this type of violence.  There's nothing clear about the debate, and presenting it as such just shuts down discussion.  

 

If you feel a debate or a comparison is not worthwhile, please feel free not to participate.  

[PseudoSABR]

That said, I agree with everyone who hopes this will disencourage candidates from using base-level inflammatory rhetoric.  

 

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see this type of domestic terrorism stopping any time soon.  I think there's real fear of finding the fault within ourselves; we too easily want to pin on the unforeseeable crazy.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

People interpret facts differently.  I really disdain your ownership of objectivity.  It's really just like your opinion, man.

 

I think its fair game to compare this kind of violence with the violence that took place in France.  I reject that each specific religion is the determining factor; so the comparison isn't between Christianity and Islam, it's between people motivated to commit mass murder and people motivated to commit mass murder.  You might disagree, but the comparison isn't absurd, even though each clearly differ (as you suggest) in scope and organization. 

 

Mental health advocates aren't necessarily exclusively interested in forbidding gun ownership from those diagnosed with mental illness; such advocates want mental health concerns fore-fronted publicly to where people like this (even if this individual suffers from no ailment) won't slip through the cracks, like so many others who left a cookie-crumb trail of crying for help or demonstrating violent tendencies. 

 

Many of us think gun laws would go a long way to curbing this type of violence.  There's nothing clear about the debate, and presenting it as such just shuts down discussion.  

 

If you feel a debate or a comparison is not worthwhile, please feel free not to participate.  

 

1) The original poster made the religious zealot connection.  Yes, all religions know zealots, but the implication was that this somehow puts Christian zealotry on the same level as Islam.  It's absolutely absurd.

 

2) It's fine to want more willingness to declare mental illness, but that has negatives as well.  If we become  too eager to declare people mentally ill it can have many ramifications beyond just gun ownership.  Neighbors thinking you're weird should never be enough for someone to claim a murderer is mentally ill.  He could just be a freaking murderer.

 

3)  Pass gun laws.  That's fine.  But don't imply that this situation would've been prevented by gun laws.  It wouldn't have.  Saying otherwise is just factually incorrect.  

[biggentleben]

I'll just throw this into the mix:

 

As someone who works in the mental health field, I am 100% against any ban on weapon ownership by the mentally ill based on their diagnosis. If there is past behavior or indications of violence that make such a person a concern to own a weapon, then so be it, but to refuse a gun to someone based on a mental health diagnosis alone without basing it on the person beyond the diagnosis is flat out discrimination.

 

I will support better scanning and testing and restrictions to gun ownership whole-heartedly, but checking a box that indicates schizophrenia should not automatically refuse you the opportunity to own a shotgun to go hunt deer (or pheasant or duck or whatever your choosing). In fact, that's the real issue I have with the gun culture in this country. There are some restrictions in place in various states and those states do disallow anyone with a diagnosed SPMI from owning any firearm, which would include a hunting weapon. However, I work with many whose best memories growing up were going hunting with friends and family before their illness took hold and they'd love nothing more than to go out to shoot birds. These same people go fishing constantly and enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone, but they're denied one large part of being an "outdoorsman (or woman)" because of a disease they were genetically "gifted", regardless of whether or not they are a legitimate concern to society by having a 12-gauge in their possession.

 

The conversation on guns needs to move away from mental illness desperately. We have a gun issue in this country. We have a mental health issue in this country. On very, very rare occasions, they tragically intersect. Outside of that, they have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and beyond that, solutions should be sought for each independently, not assuming any change in the results of the other without significant independent change happening in that issue as well. If you change gun laws and expect that somehow to better the lives of mentally ill, well, just read that sentence, and you get the idiocy of that line of thinking. If you change mental health laws and assume that will change how the entirety of the country approaches guns, well, once again, read that sentence and you'll understand how odd that even sounds. They simply have nothing to do with one another outside of political rhetoric.

[Mike Sixel]

Still waiting for a GOP candidate to say "if only the PP people had had guns with them, this tragedy would not have happened". Or, pretty much anything meaningful about this.

 

Preach hate, get hate. Preach government is evil, get bad government. That's how the world works.

[Craig Arko]

Some days, I really just want to root for the asteroid.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The conversation on guns needs to move away from mental illness desperately. We have a gun issue in this country. We have a mental health issue in this country. On very, very rare occasions, they tragically intersect. 

 

This is perfectly said.  It's why my blood boils the second anyone tries to tie these two issues after someone murders people.

 

And in this case there is ZERO reason it should ever come up as a thing and yet time and time again with these shooting incidents we have a very large group of people talking mental health and guns.  It's so misguided as to what actual mental health issues mean and usually totally erroneous about the reality of these situations.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

And in this case there is ZERO reason it should ever come up as a thing and yet time and time again with these shooting incidents we have a very large group of people talking mental health and guns.  It's so misguided as to what actual mental health issues mean and usually totally erroneous about the reality of these situations.  

Just stop with this "ZERO reason" (and the "absurd") rhetoric.  It's ugly talk, and it's wrongheaded.   

 

That the facts of this particular case don't readily indicate mental illness, does not create some bar for the discussion.   Where there's extreme violence, I believe there's mental and emotional health issues, whether they are diagnosed or not.    Again, the discussion doesn't have to be about banning a schizophrenic from owning a fire arm--the discussion that I want to have is how do we tend to the mental and emotional health needs of our neighbors so they don't get to the point where such violence seems reasonable to them.   We need to take a two prong approach 1) stop a person such as this from easily owning a gun 2) stop a person such as this from emotionally getting to the point where such violence is possible.     It's the second prong that you're willing to ignore, because you don't want to talk about the first prong.  

 

There's probably additional reasons (i.e. more than zero) why it's appropriate to have a mental health discussion when there's mass violence motivated by extreme belief.   The need to shut down certain avenues of discussion, well, seems absurd. 

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'll just throw this into the mix:

 

As someone who works in the mental health field, I am 100% against any ban on weapon ownership by the mentally ill based on their diagnosis. If there is past behavior or indications of violence that make such a person a concern to own a weapon, then so be it, but to refuse a gun to someone based on a mental health diagnosis alone without basing it on the person beyond the diagnosis is flat out discrimination.

 

I will support better scanning and testing and restrictions to gun ownership whole-heartedly, but checking a box that indicates schizophrenia should not automatically refuse you the opportunity to own a shotgun to go hunt deer (or pheasant or duck or whatever your choosing). In fact, that's the real issue I have with the gun culture in this country. There are some restrictions in place in various states and those states do disallow anyone with a diagnosed SPMI from owning any firearm, which would include a hunting weapon. However, I work with many whose best memories growing up were going hunting with friends and family before their illness took hold and they'd love nothing more than to go out to shoot birds. These same people go fishing constantly and enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone, but they're denied one large part of being an "outdoorsman (or woman)" because of a disease they were genetically "gifted", regardless of whether or not they are a legitimate concern to society by having a 12-gauge in their possession.

 

The conversation on guns needs to move away from mental illness desperately. We have a gun issue in this country. We have a mental health issue in this country. On very, very rare occasions, they tragically intersect. Outside of that, they have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and beyond that, solutions should be sought for each independently, not assuming any change in the results of the other without significant independent change happening in that issue as well. If you change gun laws and expect that somehow to better the lives of mentally ill, well, just read that sentence, and you get the idiocy of that line of thinking. If you change mental health laws and assume that will change how the entirety of the country approaches guns, well, once again, read that sentence and you'll understand how odd that even sounds. They simply have nothing to do with one another outside of political rhetoric.

This is very thoughtful.  But I think it's important to distinguish between mental illness and mental and emotional health.   In my opinion, these mass shooters aren't necessarily diagnosisable by the DSM IV (or whatever); rather they are emotional disturbed in a way that is either fostered or ignored by society.  For me it's not so much about stopping the guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill, as is about creating a culture that values its citizens' mental and emotional health.  

 

For the record, I would never be in favor of the blanket discrimination you describe.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

That the facts of this particular case don't readily indicate mental illness, does not create some bar for the discussion.  

 

Yes, it does.  Wedging in mental health to a case where it doesn't belong belittles what actual needs there are in the mental health system and distorts a real issue with a phony one.There is zero reason for it to be involved in this case but for stupid political talking points.   

 

The second prong you talk about is more about our mental health system and how we both identify and help people who are struggling.  That has literally nothing to do with guns in 99.99999% of cases so the first prong is utterly irrelevant.  You've wed two completely different issues for absolutely no reason.

 

That's not an avenue for discussion, that's just phony BS.

[Craig Arko]

This discussion might be more useful if people stop trying to dictate the parameters for it.

 

Otherwise it's just naval-gazing.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yes, it does.  Wedging in mental health to a case where it doesn't belong belittles what actual needs there are in the mental health system and distorts a real issue with a phony one.There is zero reason for it to be involved in this case but for stupid political talking points.   

 

The second prong you talk about is more about our mental health system and how we both identify and help people who are struggling.  That has literally nothing to do with guns in 99.99999% of cases so the first prong is utterly irrelevant.  You've wed two completely different issues for absolutely no reason.

 

That's not an avenue for discussion, that's just phony BS.

Phony BS?  Absolutely no reason?  99.99999%?  Political points?  Can't you make these points without extreme (and honestly insulting) rhetoric. I'm not suggesting you are right or wrong; I just want to have a conversation.  

 

That there is mass violence perpetuated by anyone, suggests emotional and mental instability (that we can and should talk about).  If you disagree, disagree; but there's no need to shutdown the conversation.  It's just not your place to police the scope of the discussion; if you feel a topic is outside the scope of what you deem relevant, recuse yourself, and let others go about that discussion, and if everyone agrees the topic is outside the scope, no one will respond.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

This discussion might be more useful if people stop trying to dictate the parameters for it.

Otherwise it's just naval-gazing.

Thank you.  And I apologize for the thread getting derailed into discussion of parameters and scope.   

 

I just think it's wrong when anyone needlessly restricts a conversation, especially one as complex as this.

[Craig Arko]

Thank you.  And I apologize for the thread getting derailed into discussion of parameters and scope.   

 

I just think it's wrong when anyone needlessly restricts a conversation, especially one as complex as this.

Agreed, and I think we're good. You aren't on ignore.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You aren't on ignore.

...yet. 

[Craig Arko]

...yet. 

...yet. 

The day is still young.

[Squirrel]

 

Thank you.  And I apologize for the thread getting derailed into discussion of parameters and scope.   

 

I just think it's wrong when anyone needlessly restricts a conversation, especially one as complex as this.

Concur.

 

But I'm going to say this to both you and Levi ... I've been reading your debates and discussions for a long time now, and I appreciate the passion you bring and the thoughts and ideas you share. You both make me go beyond my own parameters and scope to think further. I may not, in the end, agree with one or either of you, but I've always appreciated what you both have had to say, whether I've liked it or not. To that, and this goes to everyone, yes, let's not be dismissive of each other and watch that the passion doesn't reach points of ... rancor (?) ... that we lose sight of the discussion. We may not ever come to agreement on anything, and whether or not you think the other is being too absolute or too idiotic or too unreasonable or too whatever, let's keep the discussions civil.

[TheLeviathan]

Oh goodie, I get to be the bad guy.  All I can think about when I hear all this is the great Lego movie quote of how most of this is "hippy, dippy, baloney".

 

So let me put it in political terms I know most of you will agree with and show you how you're just doing the same thing, but you don't notice it because you think your side is right.  One of the biggest damn problems we have is a lack of relevant discourse.  Nothing gets solved in this country because no one wants to stay on the damn point and talk about what actually matters and how you can actually solve a problem.  We just want to score points for our "side"

 

Not only do I feel it's not necessary to recuse myself, it should be the duty of every thinking person to try and stop this kind of tangent, irrelevant discourse from happening.  We NEED to set parameters.  Every time some Republican talks about climate change we need to make that half-wit stays within the parameters of science and fact.  Letting him wander into carrying snow balls into Congress or any other inane, non-scientific argument is letting the conversation go off the rails.  We need parameters to tell that guy to either keep it to facts and science or stop talking.

 

Every time a Republican makes up stuff from a heavily edited video about Planned Parenthood to drum up political support and divisively wedge the conversation in the wrong direction - we need some damn parameters.

 

Every time some racist right-winger thinks black violence is because people are black and not from hundreds of years of oppression - we need some damn parameters.  

 

I could go on.  Nearly every important issue gets side-tracked by one side or the other because we think "just having the conversation" is what's important.  I'd rather we have one that's based in facts and good sense rather than distortions and rhetorical nonsense.  So excuse me if I don't back down and insist that the parameters of the discussion stay relevant, meaningful, and true.

 

And rhetorical nonsense is exactly what is happening here.  We have wed mental health and gun violence because we think the former is a powerful vehicle to make the latter a reality.  (Or, in the case of some right wingers, that emphasizing the former will give the latter a pass)  Why the hell do we have to talk about gun access for the mentally ill to talk about how to improve the general mental health of the nation?  We are these tied together constantly?  Why are we talking about mental illness and gun access when we know nothing about how he acquired his fire arm and we know that there is no diagnosed mental illness?  

 

The reality is that most people with actual mental health issues aren't the ones committing these horrendous acts.  Wedding the two issues suggests otherwise and is dangerous in how it presents the mentally ill.  Hell, the vast majority of people in need of mental health care will never be cited for any violent act much less something as horrendous as this.  It shouldn't be part of this issue at all because it isn't relevant and is dangerous rhetoric of the same variety that may have lead to these murders.  

[TheLeviathan]

Seems he had something of a criminal history.  Was also reported in places that a woman opted not to pursue rape charges and one of his wives declined to press charges for domestic abuse.

 

It does reinforce how serious the trust problem with women and our justice system on these matters still is.

[Craig Arko]

Of course it's not like this is an isolated incident.

 

http://m.mic.com/articles/129329/a-former-planned-parenthood-employee-tweeted-this-list-of-acts-of-terrorism-she-survived#.ujqvofP5i

[Squirrel]

Another day, another shooting ... San Bernardino, CA ... situation still active and unfolding; 1-3 shooters, multiple victims.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Another day, another shooting ... San Bernardino, CA ... situation still active and unfolding; 1-3 shooters, multiple victims.

 

 

It's hard for me to get any good information right now, I saw a "social services center" - has there been any clarity as to what that means?  

 

But yeah, I don't know what it's going to take to shift how we think about guns in America.  I would've thought a slaughtered bunch of 6 year olds at school would do it but we don't seem to have any initiative to change on this.