Philosophy Discussion Forums

Trump's immediate reaction to this appears to be 1. to congratulate himself on being right about the evils of Islam and 2. to strongly suggest that president Obama is secretly conspiring in such acts because he didn't immediately condemn it as "Islamic extremism". I presume this is a taste of what we can look forward to under a Trump presidency. Knee-jerk vilification and witch-hunting against anybody who doesn't shout their hatred loudly enough, refreshingly free of any consideration of inconvenient things like facts and evidence. Up to now, Trump has always seemed just a funny cartoon character. Now, as the realization dawns that he actually could be swept into power on a wave of paranoia and hatred of "the other", I suspect he's going to be more and more terrifying.

Anyway, it seems to be transpiring that the perpetrator in this horrific massacre may have been motivated mostly be his own internal conflicts about his sexuality. But only time will tell. Too early to jump to conclusions.

Spiral Out wrote: Mental health reforms are the only way to start resolving this problem.

Spiral Out, I think you like your guns, love your guns, don't want to give them up, and are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to come up with arguments that don't make you seem mental. The sky is blue (mostly), 2 + 2 = 4, and assault weapons and guns in general allow a perpetrator to kill large numbers of people more efficiently. Try to look at this issue from a logical standpoint. Don't do what most people do, and what you've done on this question - start with a conclusion and try to find the least illogical arguments to support your preconceived notion. Jesus.

Greta wrote:The same "dance" after each mass murder. Nothing changes.

Actually, this time there seems to be a consensus that banning gun sales to folks on the no fly list could happen. We'll have to see.

This guy wasn't on the no-fly list was he?

Early indications seem to be that the most likely main motivation for this particular mass-killing was a lifelong inner conflict caused by his own homosexuality and his cultural background's complete condemnation of that sexual orientation. I can certainly see how a feeling of being forced to live in a constant state of conflict and denial could lead to self-hatred and anger that could be turned outward. Latching onto a group like ISIS would just be a way of expressing that anger at the apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy of the world. No doubt if he came from a different ethnic background and had the same feelings he would choose the violent extremist group most appropriate for him.

If the general opinion is that a blanket ban on the type of weapon he used is still not appropriate and that the best course of action is to ban the sale of such weapons to specific people who look likely to use them for the purpose they're designed for (killing very large numbers of people very quickly) then it's difficult to see how this kind of inner conflict could be identified clearly and definitively enough to warrant banning people like him from WMD ownership.

Steve3007 wrote:Latching onto a group like ISIS would just be a way of expressing that anger at the apparent inconsistency and hypocrisy of the world.

It also helps to deflects questions about the shooter's sexuality. He did it for Allah, right? Not because he wanted to be rid of the potentially stigmatising temptation posed by the club. Perish the thought!

Wilson wrote:Spiral Out, I think you like your guns, love your guns, don't want to give them up, and are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to come up with arguments that don't make you seem mental.

I'd destroy them tomorrow without hesitation if every single person, organization and government on the planet did the same. We're all in this together after all.

If stating the overwhelmingly obvious fact that the underlying issue with violence is mental illness makes me "seem mental" then that's yet another problem with society altogether.

Do you deny that those who commit mass-scale violent acts are mentally ill?

Wilson wrote:The sky is blue (mostly), 2 + 2 = 4, and assault weapons and guns in general allow a perpetrator to kill large numbers of people more efficiently.

"If we eliminate guns then we eliminate gun violence." Well no ****, genius. As if guns are the only way to commit mass violence. Guns may be the CURRENT way to commit their violence but all it takes is one major shift in policy to create one major shift in method.

As I have said before, even if you eliminate guns altogether, there will still be mental illness and violence, and even mass killings. The only thing that will change are the methods and implements used to commit the violence.

Banning assault weapons to make it harder for mentally ill and violent people to commit their violence will only make it harder for those people to commit their violence with guns. Guns are not the only weapons widely available that can be used to kill multiple people in one incident. We WILL see people resort to using motor vehicles in order to kill large numbers of people in the near future. It is already happening. Pay close attention to the news. Open your eyes and stop seeing only what you want to see.

There are two elements that combine to create these mass murders. Violence and weapons. We cannot eliminate weapons. That is impossible. We can, however, potentially eliminate mental illness.

Mental health reform is the ONLY way out of this problem.

Wilson wrote:Try to look at this issue from a logical standpoint.

My position is based on real-world facts, textbook psychology and fundamental logic. Yours is based on an ignorance which creates emotional instability and fear.

Wilson wrote:Don't do what most people do, and what you've done on this question - start with a conclusion and try to find the least illogical arguments to support your preconceived notion.

My supposed "preconceived notion" is actually an obvious real-world fact. Are you denying that those who commit these murders are mentally ill?

Which would you rather have? A society without the guns or a society without the violently mentally-ill?

The only problem I can see is who has the power to decide who is "mentally ill".

Was the hero of Chappaquidic sick? Was JFK? Or a Bush? Should we trust our lives and our honor to the DMV or the DHS.

Should we trust Trump or Hillary? You gotta be funning me.

If the solution to mass killings is gun control/gun bans, then let's say, for argument's sake, all guns have been successfully banned and are unavailable to the general public and now these violently mentally-ill people are using motor vehicles to kill large amounts of people by mowing them down in densely crowded areas such as downtown city sidewalks and parades, etc., which is what I believe will happen and is already happening. What will your solution be then?

Who should have the power to decide who can own a gun and which type they can own? It's the same baseline as who can decide who is or who is not mentally ill.

Little Johnny threw cake at little Sally and now nobody can have any cake.

I think it's too simplistic to say that all violence is caused by mental illness. It seems pretty likely to be caused by widely differing things in different cases. So the solution, in each case, is different. In this case, based on currently available evidence, the solution to stopping this kind of attack in the future is possibly to encourage more open discussion of sexuality in traditionally minded communities. Clearly very specific to this case, and very much a long term project.

I'm not claiming that ALL violence is caused by mental illness. However, in the case of the mass murders that we've been experiencing, it absolutely is. In order for someone to kill in that manner they must be mentally ill by the very nature of the act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Interesting BBC article. Of course every adult male citizen in Switzerland has an assault rifle and several magazines of ammunition at home and they're gun crime rate is a lot nearer the UK's than the US', but then the Swiss are very odd people.

Spiral Out wrote: My supposed "preconceived notion" is actually an obvious real-world fact. Are you denying that those who commit these murders are mentally ill?

Which would you rather have? A society without the guns or a society without the violently mentally-ill?

You seem to think that all we have to do is throw money at the mental health system and that would cure all the mentally ill and prevent all mass violence. Really? You have a completely unrealistic conception of the powers of psychiatry. Many mentally ill people refuse to submit to psychiatric care. Of those that do, medication can help some of them get a grip on reality, but then it's very common for them to stop their meds because of side effects. Do you want Big Brother forcing people to submit to medical care they don't want? (In some cases I would, but I suspect you don't want government to have that much control, especially since the diagnosis is often unclear.) And many mentally ill patients don't respond to treatment.

Plus it's all in how you define mental illness. Is someone who is suicidal and angry at the world and wants to kill others in a grand gesture actually mentally ill? Say that he's rational and just filled with hate and possibly self-disgust, as this man probably was. He wasn't technically mentally ill, unless you stretch the definition. In fact, I don't think most mass murderers fit into neat psychiatric categories, unless you postulate that "anyone who would do this is mentally ill". Most of them may have elements of narcissism, grandiosity, and lack of empathy - but that describes a lot of CEO's and politicians.

Seriously, do you believe that we the taxpayers should spend money for psychiatric evaluation and treatment - for a year or more in many cases - for anyone who has ever acted out, was violent, showed hatred toward another group, or threatened someone? Are you willing to pay for that? And how do you identify such people accurately and without compromising their (your or my) rights? The answer is, you can't. A better psychiatric system might prevent an occasional atrocity, but it would miss 99% of them.

I think your solution is an attempt to come up with some answer that doesn't involve giving up your guns. But it doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. Like so many gun owners who resist even minimal changes for regulating firearms, you are more interested in being able to have fun with your weapons than in preventing at least some future mass murders. Some might say that that indicates a lack of empathy for others. But while lack of empathy is a component of the mindset of those who commit atrocities, I'd never say that everyone with that attitude is mentally ill.

Wilson wrote:I think your solution is an attempt to come up with some answer that doesn't involve giving up your guns. But it doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. Like so many gun owners who resist even minimal changes for regulating firearms, you are more interested in being able to have fun with your weapons than in preventing at least some future mass murders.

The reason I won't give up my guns is because I know it won't make a damn bit of difference to anything. It would be a hollow and meaningless, and ultimately ineffective gesture.

But I've already stated that "I'd destroy them tomorrow without hesitation if every single person, organization and government on the planet did the same. We're all in this together after all." so you can stop with the "you're in love with your guns" ********. Move on.

Wilson wrote:You seem to think that all we have to do is throw money at the mental health system and that would cure all the mentally ill and prevent all mass violence.

Not exactly, but focusing on improving mental health systems and treatment techniques is a better attempt to solve the issue than taking the lazy way out and being unthinkingly reactive.

Wilson wrote:You have a completely unrealistic conception of the powers of psychiatry.

No, I have hope that psychology and psychotherapy can improve vastly if enough time and effort is put into research. Humans are intelligent enough to build something like the LHC but we're not intelligent enough to identify and treat someone who is highly likely to commit a mass killing?

That a completely **** embarrassing failure of Humanity.

Wilson wrote:Seriously, do you believe that we the taxpayers should spend money for psychiatric evaluation and treatment - for a year or more in many cases - for anyone who has ever acted out, was violent, showed hatred toward another group, or threatened someone? Are you willing to pay for that?

We're all paying much more for far less than that already.

Wilson wrote:The answer is, you can't. A better psychiatric system might prevent an occasional atrocity, but it would miss 99% of them.

Where'd you get that percentage? You have no vision of what the future might hold, so you go along with an unthinking population and choose the thoughtless reaction.

Wilson wrote:Plus it's all in how you define mental illness. Is someone who is suicidal and angry at the world and wants to kill others in a grand gesture actually mentally ill? Say that he's rational and just filled with hate and possibly self-disgust, as this man probably was. He wasn't technically mentally ill, unless you stretch the definition. In fact, I don't think most mass murderers fit into neat psychiatric categories, unless you postulate that "anyone who would do this is mentally ill". Most of them may have elements of narcissism, grandiosity, and lack of empathy - but that describes a lot of CEO's and politicians.

Again, a society that can waste valuable time and resources driving a rover around on another planet remotely from Earth should be able to do more with the problem of violence. Here's an idea, maybe we could use some of this wondrous science to actually help people. What a **** concept.

If it were such a terrible crisis then more time and resources would be allocated to a real solution, not just throwing around half-assed and ineffective legislation and self-serving political posturing.

Spiral Out wrote:I'm not claiming that ALL violence is caused by mental illness. However, in the case of the mass murders that we've been experiencing, it absolutely is. In order for someone to kill in that manner they must be mentally ill by the very nature of the act.

1). Who says that someone who kills must be mentally ill? Is this a law? Or is this a pseudo-scientific assertion attempting to masquerade as common sense?

2). Soldiers kill several people. Therefore, soldiers are mass murderers. Are they all mentally ill? Why are veterans hailed while other mass shooters are demonized? What is the difference between a mass murderer and a soldier? Does the psyche make such a distinction? Does the state have a monopoly on violence?

3). Why do people feel a strong desire to label mass shooters as mentally ill? Who establishes the guidelines for mental illness?

Mark1955:

Interesting BBC article. Of course every adult male citizen in Switzerland has an assault rifle and several magazines of ammunition at home and they're gun crime rate is a lot nearer the UK's than the US', but then the Swiss are very odd people.

If having a relatively low gun crime rate despite having a very high level of gun ownership is part of being odd, maybe we should all be more odd like them! Buy a few cuckoo clocks.

I guess we could try to look at what it might be about a country like Switzerland that makes it different, in that respect, from a country like the US. Off the top of my head, one thing might be relative cultural homogeneity and natural conservatism. At least that's the Swiss stereotype. The stereotype of the US is of a country that has, over the years, taken in peoples from all over the world who are looking for a better life and/or freedom to live in their own way. Empathy is essentially about being able to see something of yourself in others. The less you can do that, the less empathy you have. Perhaps one of downsides of a dynamic and diverse society is that it allows certain individuals in certain sub-communities to feel particularly alienated, and therefore non-empathetic, towards the society in which they find themselves and the people who surround them.

So maybe the cost of being Swiss is too great for the benefit of not being shot once in a while. Or as Graham Greene put it in "The Third Man":

"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy and peace - and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."