Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[Angrboda]

Doesn't change a thing.  Your argument: mass shooters are mentally ill, by which you mean that a person is mentally ill if they are a mass shooter.  It's nothing but circular garbage.

Yes, I think mass shooters are mentally ill. And?

Boru

And you have no point, for the reason stated. You can believe anything you like. If you claim something, you need evidence. Aside from this circular garbage, which, due to its circularity is vacuous and invalid, do you have any evidence that mass shooters are mentally ill? If not, your claim, no matter how strongly you believe it, can be dismissed. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, I think mass shooters are mentally ill. And?

Boru

And you have no point, for the reason stated.  You can believe anything you like.  If you claim something, you need evidence.  Aside from this circular garbage, which, due to its circularity is vacuous and invalid, do you have any evidence that mass shooters are mentally ill?  If not, your claim, no matter how strongly you believe it, can be dismissed.  Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ok.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

A mass shooter has issues. All people with mental illness aren't going to be mass shooters. I think that's quite obvious.

I suffer from depression and have for years which is a mental illness. I have never planned a mass shooting. If everyone who goes through either a long or short term mental disturbance decided to shoot a bunch of people...there'd be a lot less people around. Hell, a bout with post-partum led me to try to off myself...never considered taking anyone else out. It was bad enough to require medical intervention but still didn't send me off on a tangent with a rifle.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not just not clear, it's demonstratively not the case. Mass shooters are not crazy, they're terrorists.

Whatever laws we enact or strengthen to deal with "crazy has a gun" are great - but they wont touch, and have never touched, "terrorist has a gun". To use the joke tweet from before..it's a bit more fucked up if we just say what's true, that we have a domestic terrorist problem, and the world can still say they've got those too..but I bet they look alot like our own.

[The Grand Nudger]

These posts were right on top of each other.  If the evidence does not support the madman with a gun theory, that can't be what they have in common.   It's not arcane knowledge or a well hidden state secret.  The US, Norway, and Macedonia all register mass shootings as a consequence of ethno-centric domestic terrorism.

I think mass shooters have an undiagnosed mental illness. If willingness to kill strangers is not a sign of mental illness, what is? But it doesn't follow that a diagnosed mental illness is a good predictor of being a mass shooter and that people with a diagnosed mental illness should not be allowed to have guns. Also, I think making it illegal for people with mental illness to own a gun will make people owning a gun be afraid of visiting a psychiatrist.

You think wrong.  They do not.  They are terrorists, not mentally ill.  There's no ambiguity in the data on this..not in the US..not in Norway...not in Macedonia. If mass shooters were nuts, that would mean that being nuts was a good predictor of mass shootings. They aren't and so it isn't, no need to tie our scrotums into knots trying to argue against the other guy and ourselves simultaneously.

You wanna talk about a good predictor of mass shootings? Consumption of reich wing content and participation in reich wing events. Easy. You could have a hundred guns and a history of depression, but none of that makes you more likely to be a mass shooter. You could have no guns and no mental health history but a strong youtube content fetish..and that does.

Ter...ro.....rists.....

Case in point, the alleged subject of this entire thread, a mass shooting in belgrade. Why did the shooter say he did it? To intimidate the population.

[Ravenshire]

Personally, I support looser gun regulation in the US and anywhere else, whether it makes the country "safer" or not. Rights and freedoms come at a price and I can accept the current price.

Since it's not your loved ones being gunned down, I don't think anyone here gives a single fuck what price you're willing to let other's pay.

[The Grand Nudger]

Many of you may die..but that..is a risk...he's willing to take. Mostly because he thinks the terrorists are his spirit friends. It would be hilarious if it weren't pathetic.

[The Valkyrie]

The point is that outright gun prohibition will, if the Gary Kleck's 1995 study is anywhere close to right (and I see no reason to think it's wrong by an order of magnitude), massively increase the risk of gun deaths, rather than decrease it. Gun prohibition which is supposed to make us safer would make us far less safe.

Personally, I support looser gun regulation in the US and anywhere else, whether it makes the country "safer" or not. Rights and freedoms come at a price and I can accept the current price.

As far as the anti-gunners, I concede to the argument that one is more likely to be shot or have a family member shot by having a gun in the home. Though much of that does come down to people being responsible with their guns or irresponsible with their guns. I've never personally owned a gun, but I wouldn't consider it irresponsible to bring a gun into the home. Keep them being manufactured and handed out like candy, as our dear friend Brian at the forums would say. The more guns, the merrier.

Below is a picture of three of those killed in Texas over the weekend.



The 6-year-old at the front is now left without his parents or sibling.

When your "rights" and "freedoms" to own an assault-style firearm infringe on the rights of others to live and you shrug it off as a "cost for freedom", you can go and fuck yourself.

Preferably with a spinning chainsaw.

Prick!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Personally, I support looser gun regulation in the US and anywhere else, whether it makes the country "safer" or not. Rights and freedoms come at a price and I can accept the current price.

As far as the anti-gunners, I concede to the argument that one is more likely to be shot or have a family member shot by having a gun in the home. Though much of that does come down to people being responsible with their guns or irresponsible with their guns. I've never personally owned a gun, but I wouldn't consider it irresponsible to bring a gun into the home. Keep them being manufactured and handed out like candy, as our dear friend Brian at the forums would say. The more guns, the merrier.

Below is a picture of three of those killed in Texas over the weekend.



The 6-year-old at the front is now left without his parents or sibling.

When your "rights" and "freedoms" to own an assault-style firearm infringe on the rights of others to live and you shrug it off as a "cost for freedom", you can go and fuck yourself.

Preferably with a spinning chainsaw.

Prick!

Talk is cheap when it ain't your ass on the line.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

After a fair bit of poking about online, I withdraw my contention that mental illness is a predictor of mass shooting. I wasn’t just wrong, I was really, REALLY wrong. 

I happily concede that mental health researchers at Columbia and Cambridge know more about this than I do/did.

Boru