If the suspect produced those clips himself where he says he wants to kill himself as well as random people? In that case, yes.

For me, if there were things to take away from others to stop this sort of insanity, then it would be taking away the media being able to sensationalize these stories and glamorize shooters and killers. Remove the media fanfare and the copycats (which this guy is) will go away.

Glamorizing shooters and killers has been around for decades especially in video games. You wouldn't want to ban fist person shooter video games would you?

I was saying in an imaginary scenario where we're going to try and stop what's not really a big deal overall (how many people go beserk every year- 3-4? 5? and how many die- 50?)

then yes, I'd rather see fps games confiscated from shelves (although those games are not the same as the media sensationalizing actual real brutality, which was my point) before I see police raid homes and confiscate people's personal possessions based on pseudo-science.

But the police would not be basing it exclusively on pseudo-science. They would be basing their confiscation powers on other factors as well...like the killer plainly saying he wants to kill himself and other people.

No one is arguing that guns should be confiscated based only on a psychologist's recommendation. There are other factors that should be considered. And in this particular case I think there were enough factors to warrant the police confiscating the killer's guns.

And what does that solve? No problem has been solved the kid is still dangerous. In the case of premeditated murder the kid just finds another gun and because he's obviously crazy continues his plan. Removing a gun just changes the equation it doesn't touch the problem.

It also brings up an interesting legal problem. If you judge someone so crazy you forcefully remove his property/gun then by leaving that person lose to acquire another gun you have knowingly left a legally dangerous person to commit a crime.


.

No one said any law is 100% fool proof. Yes, the killer might have just gotten another gun. Or he might have thought it too troublesome to get another gun. In fact, in his own diary, he said he was glad the police did not search his room or else they would have found his guns and his plans would be all over. Those are his words I am paraphrasing.

So you have judged someone so dangerous you can legally take his property but you allow him lose to acquire another gun?

That's pretty negligent of you.

Who said that the killer should have been allowed lose to legally purchase more guns? Once the police confiscate the original guns, there should be a "no-gun list" for that person especially if he says he wants to kill himself and other people

There no way to prevent every single crime. That is obvious. The point it to make it harder for people to commit crimes. Some of those people will inevitably give up because of difficulty. And some of those people who persists may still be caught before the crime, since he had to go through additional hoops to bypass any laws.

But we all know that's not going to happen.

The media is in the business of making a profit from sensationalizing tragedy. They feed the morbid curiosity of the public to know all the minute details of the story.

We have to explore other options. I don't profess to know the answers. The issues are complex with no simple solutions.

I'm still reading this kid's 140 page manifesto this afternoon - from the aforementioned curiosity factor. Trying to get a handle on what made this kid tick - to understand how the fuse was lit, from a psychology standpoint.

It's pretty messed up - and goes far deeper than the simple Youtube videos.

Haven't you ever bought illegal drugs before? You just acquire another gun by buying one one the street. Anyone smart and determined to commit a premeditated murder will take the time to get another gun.

Thinking a crazy person committed to murder will stop his plans because he can't legally purchase one isn't being realistic. Hell, , the first person he might kill is someone he knows has a gun.

Like I said before, there is no way to fully prevent all crimes. Those who are very diligent in accomplishing their goals of killing will find one way or another to accomplish that goal.

The point is to make it harder for those people to commit the crime...lessen their avenues of obtaining a gun. Who knows, if the cops took his guns away, this killer might have tried to buy a gun from an undercover. Or he might have bought a defective one from some banger trying to scam him. The point is to lessen the chances of the killer actually obtaining more guns.

If you are seeing a therapist why the hell are you allowed to buy guns. Spare me the first amendment bs.

That would be sharing medical info, illegal in the US. And what would you do? Have government panels review citizens mental views on life?

Why not? If we believe someone is a threat to themselves or others, we can and in fact do lock them up on a involuntary psychiatric hold.

If someone has a history of issues with anger management, they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. If you have a history of mental illness, you shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. This is common sense.

Who is this mysterious "we" you are referring to? Government employees? If you have children you better hope like hell this never starts.

I think I've cogently stated why there's nothing common sense about that.

there's a direct correlation between depression and alcohol. And DUI drivers kill more people by far than mass murderers like this guy.

So then we should confiscate the cars of people who are seeing therapists for depression and also drink alcohol?

That's the argument here. It's the classic guns don't kill people, people kill people debate, some think guns kill people so we should take their guns away. Others think people kill people.

That is why the government should prevent certain people from keeping guns.

Wow, you want government employees reviewing the thoughts and fantasies or maybe just fictional writings of law abiding American citizens? I'll take an occasional fool shooting someone to how the latter will certainly get abused.

Yes..the police (government employees) should confiscate guns from a person who says they want to kill themselves and other people.

What if they know he will just find another gun? Do they follow him? For how long? 24 hours a day? Minimum of 3 shifts/2 per shift, 6 full time government law enforcement following how many people? Or do you turn a known crazy, I mean you just judged him that, back on the street to finish what he might do?


.

Didn't I just go over that a few posts up when I said this:

"There no way to prevent every single crime. That is obvious. The point it to make it harder for people to commit crimes. Some of those people will inevitably give up because of difficulty. And some of those people who persists may still be caught before the crime, since he had to go through additional hoops to bypass any laws. "

and this:

"The point is to make it harder for those people to commit the crime...lessen their avenues of obtaining a gun. Who knows, if the cops took his guns away, this killer might have tried to buy a gun from an undercover. Or he might have bought a defective one from some banger trying to scam him. The point is to lessen the chances of the killer actually obtaining more guns."

Make it harder to do what the guy is determined to do anyway at the expense of having the government judge how many of it's citizens as potentially unstable? Good luck with that foot in the door.

I am not arguing the government has to judge all citizens that are potentially unstable...just the citizens that are brought to their attention...like the parents did in this case when they alerted the cops.

Your intent is certainly good, I just don't think the science is there yet. If there were standardized methods for evaluating each and every person in a non-subjective vacuum, I could perhaps see trying to move forward on something like this.

But at the same time, the police went and interviewed the guy right? They followed up following procedure right? And they left without seeing anything that would allow them to make a move. Maybe they were lazy/derelict of duty, that's not at all out of the question.

But neither is the chance they did their job, took a look at this guy and within our rights as individuals and their's as police, they can't confiscate this person personal property based on anything they discovered.

I get your slippery slope concerns, and yes the anti gun types will no doubt use this as an excuse to seek sweeping anti gun legislation.

But...

You don't need to be Sigmund Freud to know this guy was a squirrel.

Surely even a government employee can be trusted to cherry pick extreme examples like this one.

And what do you do with him after taking his gun? You've just labeled him dangerous right?

Preventative detention goes way beyond what anyone here is advocating. At most the police look upon him as a potential suspect going forward.

no words

Not to draw further attention to this shooter - but after reading his entire 'manifesto' (basically his entire life story)...it gives an awful lot of chilling insight to his mind. The Youtube videos were merely a small tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

It's a very long read - took me all afternoon. I skipped a few repetitive parts where he merely rants the same misogynistic speech ad nauseum - but for the most part it was extremely articulate, incredibly detailed and intelligently written (given his obviously disturbed mind)...and concludes just prior to the shootings.

I suggest anyone interested in the sociopathic/psychology aspect should give it a read.

If local law enforcement believes you are a threat to yourself or society, they put you on lock down - called a "involuntary psychiatric hold". Why can't we do this with firearms?

All of these cases have the same thing in common - mental health issues. There was massive warning signs yet no one said "It might not be a good idea for you to have firearms". Instead, we handed them firearms.

Not a bad idea but, all the people I have know to get the "involuntary psychiatric hold" get out in a few days with a prescription and a list of dates for some classes.

The police who investigated the guy had the option to 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) him, which btw, is a cali statute only and only for 72 hours, etc., but after evaluating him they did not.

again, presuming they did their jobs, they saw nothing that warranted a 5150, the point about confiscating his guns is moot at that point.

He was a member of PUAHate.com, a site advocating hate against pick-up artists. I suspect authorities are worried about copycats, as some are calling him a hero. Both the site and Twitter account are now disabled. This is a screencap of his PUAHate profile page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Boalv8ACEAA4w4X.png:large

Here's the reason the cops never detained him for a psych eval or even bothered to do a search of his room:

Sheriffs never saw menacing videos before rampage

"Sheriff's deputies who showed up at Elliot Rodger's doorstep last month to check on his mental health hadn't seen online videos in which he threatens suicide and violence even though those recordings were what prompted his parents to call authorities."

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-never...204433571.html

One has to wonder if the cops knew of the videos, but simply never bothered to watch the videos...or if they were never told of the videos in the first place. Its hard for me to believe that the parents never told the cops about the videos...since the videos prompted the parents to call the cops in the first place.

My point exactly. Keep denying the problem at hand.

There is no way that someone that was obviously mental and seeing a therapist should be allowed to buy guns. Why is this so hard to understand?

Anyhow you obviosly don't care down there and rhis will continue to happen. Maybe you'll view it different when it happens to a family member.

He was actually seeing numerous therapists - going back several years. There was a long history of it.

they need to scrape those ips :1orglaugh that last 1 sounds nuts :1orglaugh