Gunman near UCSB kills 6 people, injures 7

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

AggregateDemand, you know that enforcement of the Gun Control Act of 1968--while an admirable thing in and of itself--would not actually have done much to stop Elliot Rodger, specifically, right?

[Lief 🗽]

Right, the gun humpers need to have their deadly weapons. Can't inject some sense into matters, even after even more people get murdered in cold blood. Their Second Amendment fundamentalist ideology is more important than the right for people to live their lives without getting shot by some coward.

Honestly, I think in this particular case I'm more inclined to lay blame at the feet of the toxic MRA/PUA "culture" than guns.

...

Also, a friend of mine wrote this really powerful reaction in the Daily Beast that everyone ought to read.  Kind of long, and maybe you don't think you care about the main thesis of the article (which, roughly, is that the f**ked-up portrayal of women as "prizes" in nerd culture, well, f**ks us all up), but, please, read it anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive and disappointing, but whatever.  Sometimes sh*t just needs to be said anyway.

Yeah I read that on the subway yesterday. Really great article.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive

You would be correct.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Right, the gun humpers need to have their deadly weapons. Can't inject some sense into matters, even after even more people get murdered in cold blood. Their Second Amendment fundamentalist ideology is more important than the right for people to live their lives without getting shot by some coward.

Honestly, I think in this particular case I'm more inclined to lay blame at the feet of the toxic MRA/PUA "culture" than guns.

...

Also, a friend of mine wrote this really powerful reaction in the Daily Beast that everyone ought to read.  Kind of long, and maybe you don't think you care about the main thesis of the article (which, roughly, is that the f**ked-up portrayal of women as "prizes" in nerd culture, well, f**ks us all up), but, please, read it anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive and disappointing, but whatever.  Sometimes sh*t just needs to be said anyway.

Yeah I read that on the subway yesterday. Really great article.

Precisely; that our existing culture encourages men to be sexually aggressive (or overly assertive in general) is the problem here (women have it even worse; one is either considered a "slut" or a "prude".)

[AggregateDemand]

AggregateDemand, you know that enforcement of the Gun Control Act of 1968--while an admirable thing in and of itself--would not actually have done much to stop Elliot Rodger, specifically, right?

He was mentally-ill and he was seeking treatment. Gun Control Act 1968 was written for this reason. Unless he purchased the firearms before he started therapy or before a government agency realized his mental-illness, GCA 1968 would have prevented this mess.

What doesn't fix this situation is universal background checks or assault weapon bans.

[traininthedistance]

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive

You would be correct.

Aaaand right on cue.  Christ on a cracker.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Interesting - disturbing - article. Thanks for posting it. This isn't really my milieu, but I suspect there's a lot of truth to it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive

You would be correct.

So you don't think misogyny and sexual entitlement in male-dominated cultures are problems?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

AggregateDemand, you know that enforcement of the Gun Control Act of 1968--while an admirable thing in and of itself--would not actually have done much to stop Elliot Rodger, specifically, right?

He was mentally-ill and he was seeking treatment.

Was he in therapy for anything other than (alleged) Asperger's Syndrome? Is this known? You do know that not everybody who's seeing a psychotherapist is the kind of 'mentally ill' that shouldn't be or isn't supposed to be allowed access to firearms, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not what the Gun Control Act of 1968 does because that's not what 'adjudicated as a mental defective' means.

[Likely Voter]

He was mentally-ill and he was seeking treatment. Gun Control Act 1968 was written for this reason. Unless he purchased the firearms before he started therapy or before a government agency realized his mental-illness, GCA 1968 would have prevented this mess.

Once again, the GCA of 1968 states...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it that you don't understand what the word "adjudicated" means?

If so then read this ATF document and then come back to us

[Lurker]

Right, the gun humpers need to have their deadly weapons. Can't inject some sense into matters, even after even more people get murdered in cold blood. Their Second Amendment fundamentalist ideology is more important than the right for people to live their lives without getting shot by some coward.

Honestly, I think in this particular case I'm more inclined to lay blame at the feet of the toxic MRA/PUA "culture" than guns.

...
...

Interesting read. I can't say for sure what I think about its conclusions, knowing little about these "cultures" (or whatever they are - I  did not even know that those two "movements" were the same).

But one problematic thing about this idea: Surely these movements/attitudes exist outside the US as well, probably in simillar proportions (though those exact terms may not be known, of course). Yet the US is basically unique in the western world for its number of mass killers - that suggests that something else could the defining factor. I would guess, without having anything concrete to back this up with, that the American gun culture is the single most important explanation for most massacres.

[AggregateDemand]

That's not what the Gun Control Act of 1968 does because that's not what 'adjudicated as a mental defective' means.

I understand how adjudication works because I used to help people file for court adjudication so they could institutionalize their mentally-ill relatives. I also once acted as a contractor to help lawyers manage financial fiduciary for disabled vets. Several veterans managed to purchase firearms "legally" (clearing NICS) though they had obviously been adjudicated as mentally-ill.

What several people don't understand is that the rate of institutionalization for mentally-ill Americans has fallen 10-fold since GCA 1968, due to advancements in psychoactive drugs and psychological therapy. People are not less mentally-ill, and GCA 1968 is not less opposed to ownership by mentally-ill Americans. Instead, the executive branch and the legislature have not worked together to enforce a modern definition of adjudication, and the executive branch, in particular, has not used executive order to make agencies report the usage of mental health services and drug use.

Perhaps Elliot Rodger's situation would have required legislative acts, but it would be nothing more than a de facto enforcement of the laws as they were written almost 50 years ago.

[Simfan34]

Right, the gun humpers need to have their deadly weapons. Can't inject some sense into matters, even after even more people get murdered in cold blood. Their Second Amendment fundamentalist ideology is more important than the right for people to live their lives without getting shot by some coward.

Honestly, I think in this particular case I'm more inclined to lay blame at the feet of the toxic MRA/PUA "culture" than guns.

...

Also, a friend of mine wrote this really powerful reaction in the Daily Beast that everyone ought to read.  Kind of long, and maybe you don't think you care about the main thesis of the article (which, roughly, is that the f**ked-up portrayal of women as "prizes" in nerd culture, well, f**ks us all up), but, please, read it anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive and disappointing, but whatever.  Sometimes sh*t just needs to be said anyway.

I agree with the general gist of the article, but to proclaim the culture- which exists- as "rape culture" is rather glib and buzz-wordy. It's not about rape, and I don't really think it enables rape in ways more than the tangential.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's not what the Gun Control Act of 1968 does because that's not what 'adjudicated as a mental defective' means.

I understand how adjudication works because I used to help people file for court adjudication so they could institutionalize their mentally-ill relatives. I also once acted as a contractor to help lawyers manage financial fiduciary for disabled vets. Several veterans managed to purchase firearms "legally" (clearing NICS) though they had obviously been adjudicated as mentally-ill.

What several people don't understand is that the rate of institutionalization for mentally-ill Americans has fallen 10-fold since GCA 1968, due to advancements in psychoactive drugs and psychological therapy. People are not less mentally-ill, and GCA 1968 is not less opposed to ownership by mentally-ill Americans. Instead, the executive branch and the legislature have not worked together to enforce a modern definition of adjudication, and the executive branch, in particular, has not used executive order to make agencies report the usage of mental health services and drug use.

Perhaps Elliot Rodger's situation would have required legislative acts, but it would be nothing more than a de facto enforcement of the laws as they were written almost 50 years ago.

Again: Is there any evidence that Rodger had any mental illness or anything specific and certifiable for which he was in therapy other than Asperger's Syndrome? Because I haven't seen any.

[eric82oslo]

In my personal opinion, there are three types of conditions mainly to blame for this gun violence behaviour of the last years/decades:

1) Lax gun laws (mostly in the US, not really the rest of the world)
2) Violent computer games
3) Action movies

(+ 4) Screwed political ideological self-indoctrination)

For the most part, it all comes down to any single combination or singularity of those three factors. That, usually in combination with either number 4 (most of the time) or sometimes mental illness (though most of the time mental illness, unlike indoctrination/ideology, only plays a minor role).

[AggregateDemand]

Again: Is there any evidence that Rodger had any mental illness or anything specific and certifiable for which he was in therapy other than Asperger's Syndrome? Because I haven't seen any.

One month before the rampage, Rodger's family called the police because they thought he was a threat to himself and others. I doubt it was an isolated incident.

Mental diagnoses within the autism spectrum, including Asperger Syndrome, should probably preclude firearm ownership, anyway.

[traininthedistance]

I agree with the general gist of the article, but to proclaim the culture- which exists- as "rape culture" is rather glib and buzz-wordy. It's not about rape, and I don't really think it enables rape in ways more than the tangential.

I think the point of language like that (in addition to, well, being the sort of shop-talk jargon that any field of thought inevitably produces) is to try and shock people into self-reflection.

If and when it alienates people who'd otherwise be receptive to the general message, then that's a shame, and in recognition of that I try to take a more accessible tack personally.  On the other hand, can't say I'm a fan of getting one's back up and automatically becoming defensive instead of being willing to critically examine one's assumptions.  So I'm not going to get up in arms about other people using it- maybe they have a good reason.

TL, DR: I don't see the glib, but I guess I'll give you the buzz-wordy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I guess I expect the reaction from most quarters here to be dismissive

You would be correct.

So you don't think misogyny and sexual entitlement in male-dominated cultures are problems?

Yes, you nailed it. That's exactly what I said.

No. Misogyny is real, and misogyny can kill. ____-dominated anything is typically unhealthy and leads to bad sh*t. With this I agree wholeheartedly. Misogynists, like those who genuinely and viciously hate any group of innocent people, are scum.

It would be simple if that were the gist of that article, and all that the author meant to imply, but it wasn't.

Much of what I have a problem with in this conversation was exactly the sort of stuff in that article. The "I'm not saying ___, (but I'm totally saying ___)" sort of statements, the accusatory generalizations, the obsession with the term "rape culture" when that term helps no one, indirectly encouraging its use as a cudgel against innocent people, and actively strips focus away from individual responsibility, the staggering over-simplification, the dismissal of mental health as if that's somehow a suspicious scapegoat and had nothing to do with it, because statements like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...are totally the writings of a sane man with no psychotic delusions at all and just part of, as the article calls it, "a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto."

"Except for the part about mass murder" of course, the article is quick to include as a caveat. You know; minor detail.

It would be the grossest understatement of all to say our culture has a lot of work to do with itself. But the amount of leaping on this controversy to prove some sort of point kind about.. Revenge of the Nerds? I don't find it helpful, and I actually find it sort of insultingly simplistic. The article ends with saying that Elliot Rodger just "needed to grow up" implying that Rodger is totally just like any other guy, totally not abnormal in any personal respect. Just an immature geek who decided to one day pick up a gun because he couldn't "grow up" and all the talk about mental health is a smokescreen.

And it's statements like that which lead to the insulting idea that men should somehow have to "prove" themselves as "safe" instead of just assuming that is the default that it totally is. A few days back I posted a report from RAINN.org that mentioned their research showing that, with one group of studies, "3% of college men are responsible for 90% of rapes." With another only "3% - 7%" of college aged men have committed, or would ever consider acting out, sexual assault.

This may scare some women out there, and I understand that. Yet, we're talking about an incredibly small percentage of people, and this constant latching on to broad, sweeping terms like "rape culture" encourages a kind of hysteria. A hysteria that's not all that dissimilar to stereotypes of black people as violent criminals, or muslims as bigots or terrorist sympathizers. Black people do commit more crimes as a percentage of people than whites do, afterall. Several times more likely to commit murder, several times more likely to steal, and several times more likely to commit crime on a white person than the other way around. None of that justifies bigotry or stereotypes. None of that excuses a person who would say they have residual feelings of discomfort around blacks. Why is it okay to encourage a sense of fear among women toward the men they meet in their daily lives, the vast, vast majority of which are not going to harm them?

Again: Is there any evidence that Rodger had any mental illness or anything specific and certifiable for which he was in therapy other than Asperger's Syndrome? Because I haven't seen any.

It's impossible to truly know without being close to the situation, but he had seen several psychiatrists and was prescribed medication(s) (in at least one instance, the medication being Risperidone) that he refused to take. It's used to treat schizophrenia, but also childhood autism, so your guess would be as good as mine. Granted, I don't think it takes much to read his manifesto on top of that, and maybe think he was suffering from some form of schizophrenia, but regardless it's quite clear he had severe psychological issues that were not being treated.

2) Violent computer games
3) Action movies

It's deeply disturbing to me how much otherwise intelligent leftists can give of echos of Jack Thompson, becoming the cultural nannyists they would've otherwise hated if this were even just a decade ago.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again: Is there any evidence that Rodger had any mental illness or anything specific and certifiable for which he was in therapy other than Asperger's Syndrome? Because I haven't seen any.

One month before the rampage, Rodger's family called the police because they thought he was a threat to himself and others. I doubt it was an isolated incident.

I'm aware of that but I was under the impression that that occurred after Rodger had bought the guns. Also, like Marokai said, whatever was wrong with him was clearly not being treated properly--if it even could have been; not every evil and depravity can be talked or drugged out of a person's psyche, nor for that matter SHOULD that be the case--so it's not as if we can be sure that the structures would have been in place to prevent him from acquiring firearms under your preferred interpretation of the spirit of the Gun Control Act of 1968 even if were being enforced that way. Some people are not going to have their mental illness treated. This is unavoidable unless you implement a regulatory and punitive regime on the mentally ill far worse by any but the most depraved stretch of the imagination than what gun owners could possibly fear being deployed against them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that certainly betrays a somewhat sensationalist understanding of how the autistic spectrum works.

You know, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm of the opinion that Democrats will always have access to entertainment as long as Second-Amendment conservatives, who rarely know anything about psychology, continue to tell everyone the proper way to identify and treat mental and neurological conditions. It's like letting children dictate driving regulations.

[MaxQue]

2) Violent computer games
3) Action movies

There has been many silly comments in that thread, but that one is the most ridiculous.
No effect has never been proven, most people playing/watching them had no issue.

And let's not act like violence is new. It's just than before, those violent people were sent to war (and we were very satisfied than they inflicted their sadism on opponents). Atrocities, abuses and other horrible actions against civilians were common, then. It's the same psychopaths that are doing shootings today. Nothing of that is new (what's new is us caring about it).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I find most amazing is a European is stating that, as the ignorant American idiots who do seem to be completely unaware that people in other countries with far less gun violence watch plenty of violent movies and play violent video games too. But a non-American should know that.

But I mean hell, compare the level of violence in Japanese media to the level of violent crime in Japan.

[traininthedistance]

2) Violent computer games
3) Action movies

It's deeply disturbing to me how much otherwise intelligent leftists can give of echos of Jack Thompson, becoming the cultural nannyists they would've otherwise hated if this were even just a decade ago.

I want and need to reply to the rest of your post in-depth at some point (suffice to say for the moment that I think you're inferring a number of things that aren't there, and likewise missing a few that are, both in regards to this particular article and feminism more generally), but real life is going to be slamming me pretty hard for a few days.  Hopefully by the time I get to it, it won't be a necro/the conversation won't spiral into untold gutters.

For now, I'll simply say that I do agree with the quoted bit.  Blaming violence in the media for this incident is pretty obviously off-base.

[eric82oslo]

2) Violent computer games
3) Action movies

There has been many silly comments in that thread, but that one is the most ridiculous.
No effect has never been proven, most people playing/watching them had no issue.

And let's not act like violence is new. It's just than before, those violent people were sent to war (and we were very satisfied than they inflicted their sadism on opponents). Atrocities, abuses and other horrible actions against civilians were common, then. It's the same psychopaths that are doing shootings today. Nothing of that is new (what's new is us caring about it).

Anders Behring Breivik was 100% a product of a gun game combined with insane political ideologies found on the internet. Story untold. There's nothing more to say basically. Or do you feel you have more to add? Or you feel you know him better than me who's lived through his tragic sh**t for the past 1000 days or even more? YES, he did affect my life and greatly...needless to say for the very negative...

[eric82oslo]

What I find most amazing is a European is stating that, as the ignorant American idiots who do seem to be completely unaware that people in other countries with far less gun violence watch plenty of violent movies and play violent video games too. But a non-American should know that.

But I mean hell, compare the level of violence in Japanese media to the level of violent crime in Japan.

So the most evil mass murderer in history, Anders Behring Breivik, is suddenly American and not Norwegian? News to me for sure!

If you don't know that his mind was totally f**cked up by a violent video game, then you're f**cked up yourself.

In Japan by the way, all guns are outlawed, so very strange there are no gun violence indeed! Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. That's the least you can do.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What I find most amazing is a European is stating that, as the ignorant American idiots who do seem to be completely unaware that people in other countries with far less gun violence watch plenty of violent movies and play violent video games too. But a non-American should know that.

But I mean hell, compare the level of violence in Japanese media to the level of violent crime in Japan.

So the most evil mass murderer in history, Anders Behring Breivik, is suddenly American and not Norwegian? News to me for sure!

If you don't know that his mind was totally f**cked up by a violent video game, then you're f**cked up yourself.

In Japan by the way, all guns are outlawed, so very strange there are no gun violence indeed! Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. That's the least you can do.

You know what is even more f**cked up then anything? The fact that Breivik will be out of prison in 20 years because of maximum sentences for his crimes. Too bad we savage American's punish those who slaughter in mass numbers instead of gently slapping Elliot Rodgers on the wrist. Maybe if we banned video games and took away our guns we'd be focus on rewarding bad behavior!

(I'm mostly kidding, but the attitude taken in Eric's post was nauseating)