mass shooters - mental illness / Insanity Plea

[NomadPatriot]

don't blame the gun.. blame the person..

mental illness or the 'Insanity Plea' used to be a winning defense in cases of mass shootings just a few decades ago.. but not anymore..

now we blame the gun..

[waauw]

Or, you know. You could blame both.

[NomadPatriot]

Or, you know. You could blame both.

no one blames the car when a driver plows into a minivan killing a family of 5...

no one blames the airplane when terrorists flew them into the twin towers...

no one blames the knife when someone goes on a stabbing spree...

no one blames the boat when the captain sinks it killing dozens...

no one blames the stove if someone leaves it on burning down a apartment building killing numerous people

none of those inanimate objects killed the people. sometimes it is an unintentional accident perpetuated by a person. .. sometimes it is a lunatic with mental issues..
it always falls on the person, but not if it's a gun .. not these days..

if you are willing to blame & ban the gun.. then you have to blame & ban everything else.. if you do not, it shows you just have an agenda againist the gun specifically

[NomadPatriot]

here is a case where the mass shooter Michael Hayes murdered 4 people claiming a mental illness & plead Insanity.. it happened in 1988 & no one then was blaming the gun from what I can tell. he was deemed Mentally Ill.

Old Salisbury Road shooting

The Old Salisbury Road shooting was a mass shooting in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, committed by Michael Charles Hayes (born January 13, 1964) on July 17, 1988. Hayes shot nine people, killing four of them; his subsequent successful use of the insanity defense in courts created a statewide controversy in the early 1990s.

Michael Hayes was born in Winston-Salem in Forsyth County, North Carolina where he was raised. After beginning to use drugs at age 13, Hayes became known for bullying and self-aggrandizing behavior, fueled by probable mental illness and drug abuse.

After bouncing from job to job, Hayes began to work at a business purchased by his parents. The business, Edwards' Moped Shop, was located on Old Salisbury Road in southern Forsyth County, near the Davidson County line. After stealing funds from the business for a number of months, Hayes' parents threatened to sell the business and stop supporting him, an idea that helped to fuel Hayes' break with reality
Hayes' trial began in Forsyth County on March 27, 1989. The scene became a media circus, resulting in difficulties in trying to seat an impartial jury. After several weeks of testimony, Hayes' defense attorneys convinced a jury that Hayes was insane at the time of the killings, as he had been diagnosed with schizophreniform disorder, alcohol dependence, cannabis dependence, and a personality disorder with antisocial and narcissistic traits. The jury reached a verdict of "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity." Many in the community and state were outraged.

Hayes was committed to the Dorothea Dix State Mental Hospital in Raleigh. At Dix, he was given Haldol, a drug often used to reduce aggression or treat schizophrenia. The psychosis went away, and Hayes went off the drug in 1989. Since then, he has never been on medication for mental illness. Hayes' yearly petitions to be set free are usually met with protest from the victims' families and scrutiny by the media.

As a result of the public outrage at the Hayes verdict, the N.C. General Assembly has made a few attempts to change the law regarding verdicts of "not guilty by reason of insanity." The most notable attempt came in 1998, when a handful of Republicans, outraged by the news that Hayes had fathered a second child while ostensibly in custody at Dix, attempted to introduce a bill that would change an insanity verdict to "guilty but insane." Such a change would allow for incarceration, rather than release, following psychiatric treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Salisbury_Road_shooting

[jimboston]

Blame is the wrong word.
Don’t assess blame, solve the problem.

no one blames the car when a driver plows into a minivan killing a family of 5...

We pass laws to punish drivers, for example DUI laws. When we know some is a risk we take away their license.

We also press car manufacturers to implement technological solutions like ABS, air bags, automatic stop, etc.

no one blames the airplane when terrorists flew them into the twin towers...

We implement more pre-flight searches, we put extra locks on the cockpit. We could do things different or better but politics get in the way here too.

no one blames the knife when someone goes on a stabbing spree...

I mean you can’t guarantee 100% safe world...

no one blames the boat when the captain sinks it killing dozens...

We look at the rules governing boat safety and design... and barring politics we update best practices.

We provide Coast Guard support which saves lives every day... unfortunately they can’t save everyone.

no one blames the stove if someone leaves it on burning down a apartment building killing numerous people

none of those inanimate objects killed the people. sometimes it is an unintentional accident perpetuated by a person. .. sometimes it is a lunatic with mental issues..
it always falls on the person, but not if it's a gun .. not these days..

if you are willing to blame & ban the gun.. then you have to blame & ban everything else.. if you do not, it shows you just have an agenda againist the gun specifically[/quote]

[NomadPatriot]

thanks for proving my point there Jimmy...

- cars are not blamed- the person driving it is..
- planes are not blamed - people are better searched or prevented from taking control of the plane
- knives are not blamed - people just accept the world can never be safe.. ( unless you have a gun to stop the person holding the knife...)
- the boat is not blamed - People get safety lessons & use a other people to save victims
- stoves are not blamed.. ( no response ….)

[jimboston]

thanks for proving my point there Jimmy...

- cars are not blamed- the person driving it is..
- planes are not blamed - people are better searched or prevented from taking control of the plane
- knives are not blamed - people just accept the world can never be safe.. ( unless you have a gun to stop the person holding the knife...)
- the boat is not blamed - People get safety lessons & use a other people to save victims
- stoves are not blamed.. ( no response ….)

You’re using the “blame” word again.

You don’t need to blame an inanimate object to think it’s a good idea to regulate the same inanimate object.

The debate isn’t blame...

The debate is... what steps can we take to reduce gun violence and gun related deaths?
Those steps all involve regulation.

Regulation can involve many different things... including gun purchasing, training, etc.

Maybe school should educate all kids on firearm safety?
Maybe they should also provide other real world skills, like how to manage a budget and how to do a simple home repair?

... but the regulations may also require we limit legal access to guns.

Now you can argue how much regulation is necessary... but are you saying ‘there should be no regulation’?

[jonesthecurl]

In countries where it's harder to get guns, especially the sort that have regularly been used in mass shootings, less people get shot. What's hard to understand about that?

[NomadPatriot]

thanks for proving my point there Jimmy...

- cars are not blamed- the person driving it is..
- planes are not blamed - people are better searched or prevented from taking control of the plane
- knives are not blamed - people just accept the world can never be safe.. ( unless you have a gun to stop the person holding the knife...)
- the boat is not blamed - People get safety lessons & use a other people to save victims
- stoves are not blamed.. ( no response ….)

You’re using the “blame” word again.

You don’t need to blame an inanimate object to think it’s a good idea to regulate the same inanimate object.

The debate isn’t blame...

The debate is... what steps can we take to reduce gun violence and gun related deaths?
Those steps all involve regulation.

Regulation can involve many different things... including gun purchasing, training, etc.

Maybe school should educate all kids on firearm safety?
Maybe they should also provide other real world skills, like how to manage a budget and how to do a simple home repair?

... but the regulations may also require we limit legal access to guns.

Now you can argue how much regulation is necessary... but are you saying ‘there should be no regulation’?

"regulate the same inanimate object, reduce gun violence, gun related deaths, regulation, Regulation, including gun purchasing, regulations, limit legal access to guns, regulation, regulation"......

yeah.. OK.. " You don’t need to blame an inanimate object"....

[jimboston]

we regulate cars, planes, boats, toys, food, medicine, drugs, electricity, housing, hunting/fishing, access to public land, water / water use, voting, sound, light, money transfer, etc.

Every aspect of life is already regulated.

In the modern world, where people don’t personally know everyone who lives within 30 miles of themselves, it’s impossible to escape regulation.

Why are guns different? Why do they need less/no regulation?

[spurgistan]

You're only allowed to regulate things if they're not explicitly designed to facilitate murdering people. That's what the Constitution says.

[NomadPatriot]

we regulate cars, planes, boats, toys, food, medicine, drugs, electricity, housing, hunting/fishing, access to public land, water / water use, voting, sound, light, money transfer, etc.

Every aspect of life is already regulated.

In the modern world, where people don’t personally know everyone who lives within 30 miles of themselves, it’s impossible to escape regulation.

Why are guns different? Why do they need less/no regulation?

guns already have regulations.. no clue where you are getting the idea I said anything about Less or No regulations.. ( but I am talking to you & you prefer to just make up things I said... )

so if your intent is to injure or kill as many as possible.. which would be a better inanimate object to use.. ?
A) a AK-47 with a full 30 round Banana clip
or
B) a Ford F-150 with a full tank of gas...
?
obviously the Ford F-150 would be the better more lethal choice.. so shouldn't the F-150 be regulated equally if not more then a AK-47...?
like say..
1) if you have a Felony you cannot buy or own a F-150...
2) you must pass a background check before being allowed to purchase a F-150..
3) you need to be at least 18 years old ( or in some states 25 years old ) in order to purchase or posses a F-150

the more lethal inanimate object be regulated greater .. obviously.. but it's not

only guns need stricter regulating.....

[spurgistan]

we regulate cars, planes, boats, toys, food, medicine, drugs, electricity, housing, hunting/fishing, access to public land, water / water use, voting, sound, light, money transfer, etc.

Every aspect of life is already regulated.

In the modern world, where people don’t personally know everyone who lives within 30 miles of themselves, it’s impossible to escape regulation.

Why are guns different? Why do they need less/no regulation?

guns already have regulations.. no clue where you are getting the idea I said anything about Less or No regulations.. ( but I am talking to you & you prefer to just make up things I said... )

so if your intent is to injure or kill as many as possible.. which would be a better inanimate object to use.. ?
A) a AK-47 with a full 30 round clip
or
B) a Ford F-150 with a full tank of gas...
?
obviously the Ford F-150 would be the better more lethal choice.. so shouldn't the F-150 be regulated equally if not more then a AK-47...?
like say..
1) if you have a Felony you cannot buy or own a F-150...
2) you must pass a background check before being allowed to purchase a F-150..
3) you need to be at least 18 years old ( or in some states 25 years old ) in order to purchase or posses a F-150

the AK. It was designed to murder efficiently. If cars were better than guns at murder, people would use cars, since those have purposes beyond murder.

[NomadPatriot]

we regulate cars, planes, boats, toys, food, medicine, drugs, electricity, housing, hunting/fishing, access to public land, water / water use, voting, sound, light, money transfer, etc.

Every aspect of life is already regulated.

In the modern world, where people don’t personally know everyone who lives within 30 miles of themselves, it’s impossible to escape regulation.

Why are guns different? Why do they need less/no regulation?

guns already have regulations.. no clue where you are getting the idea I said anything about Less or No regulations.. ( but I am talking to you & you prefer to just make up things I said... )

so if your intent is to injure or kill as many as possible.. which would be a better inanimate object to use.. ?
A) a AK-47 with a full 30 round clip
or
B) a Ford F-150 with a full tank of gas...
?
obviously the Ford F-150 would be the better more lethal choice.. so shouldn't the F-150 be regulated equally if not more then a AK-47...?
like say..
1) if you have a Felony you cannot buy or own a F-150...
2) you must pass a background check before being allowed to purchase a F-150..
3) you need to be at least 18 years old ( or in some states 25 years old ) in order to purchase or posses a F-150

the AK. It was designed to murder efficiently. If cars were better than guns at murder, people would use cars, since those have purposes beyond murder.

you only have 30- rounds.. so you only have 30 shots..
you can run over people in a f-150 for hours on end with a full tank of gas..

if you want to argue " but you can reload the AK".. well you can also fill up the F-150's tank of gas again..

think about this scenario. you are on one side of a NYC sidewalk w/ a AK fully loaded with 30 rounds.. I am on the other sidewalk on the other side of the street in a F-150 w/ a full tank of gas.. at noon you start shooting & I stomp on the gas..
who is likely to injure or kill more people...?
me.. obviously..

guns have a purpose beyond murder genius.. they are also used to defend yourself... from being murdered..

[spurgistan]

So why do we use guns to murder people? it sounds like you're arguing against guns here. I won't tell the NRA, don't worry.

And yes, reloading a gun and refilling a tank of gas are super comparable actions. Do you know anything about guns or cars?

[jimboston]

we regulate cars, planes, boats, toys, food, medicine, drugs, electricity, housing, hunting/fishing, access to public land, water / water use, voting, sound, light, money transfer, etc.

Every aspect of life is already regulated.

In the modern world, where people don’t personally know everyone who lives within 30 miles of themselves, it’s impossible to escape regulation.

Why are guns different? Why do they need less/no regulation?

guns already have regulations.. no clue where you are getting the idea I said anything about Less or No regulations.. ( but I am talking to you & you prefer to just make up things I said... )

so if your intent is to injure or kill as many as possible.. which would be a better inanimate object to use.. ?
A) a AK-47 with a full 30 round Banana clip
or
B) a Ford F-150 with a full tank of gas...
?
obviously the Ford F-150 would be the better more lethal choice.. so shouldn't the F-150 be regulated equally if not more then a AK-47...?
like say..
1) if you have a Felony you cannot buy or own a F-150...
2) you must pass a background check before being allowed to purchase a F-150..
3) you need to be at least 18 years old ( or in some states 25 years old ) in order to purchase or posses a F-150

the more lethal inanimate object be regulated greater .. obviously.. but it's not

only guns need stricter regulating.....

See, this is where talking to you becomes impossible.

You start by stating people “blame” guns.

I remove the word “blame” and just want to talk about basics...

You then jump down my throat.

You accuse me of putting words in your mouth?!

I asked you a question about your thoughts... I didn’t make any statement about your opinions!

You then start putting words in my mouth.

You CAN make some comparisons between F150’s and Guns... and comparisons are fine to a point.
There’s a point where comparisons get ridiculous.

You’ve passed that point.

Also, your negative tone hurts my mellow... so I’m done.

I’ve made my point. You can continue to argue with yourself.

[NomadPatriot]

So why do we use guns to murder people? it sounds like you're arguing against guns here. I won't tell the NRA, don't worry.

And yes, reloading a gun and refilling a tank of gas are super comparable actions. Do you know anything about guns or cars?

[NomadPatriot]

Also, your negative tone hurts my mellow... so I’m done..

that was easy enough

[Dukasaur]

Yeah, was going to say.... with the 30-round clip you might be able to kill 30 people. Then you reload and kill 30 more...

WIth the truck, you might kill that many, but it's very unlikely. If you go ramming other cars, you're likely to demolish your own within the first two or three hits... and with air bags and stuff everyone in the cars you hit may live. If you go hunting pedestrians on the sidewalk your odds are a bit better, but good luck finding that many pedestrians before you wrap it around a post.

We did have one crazy incel near here, in North York, who went killing with a van. Killed 10 and injured 16 more. That's pretty high. There's been a few other incidents like that, but not many. Maybe 5 or 6 mass killings with vehicles in the last 10 years? There isn't many because it's not as easy as it sounds. All you need is to misjudge one curb, break a Pitman arm on your steering or something, and the truck's just sitting there waiting for the cops to show up.

Trucks are not designed to be killing machines. A lot of people do kill themselves with one by accident, but as far as intentional killings its not a reliable tool.

think about this scenario. you are on one side of a NYC sidewalk w/ a AK fully loaded with 30 rounds.. I am on the other sidewalk on the other side of the street in a F-150 w/ a full tank of gas.. at noon you start shooting & I stomp on the gas..
who is likely to injure or kill more people...?
me.. obviously..

Very unlikely. If the sidewalk has enough people for your scenario, the street itself is probably full of cars. You might hit one just crossing the street, or you might have to change direction to go around him. Even if you get across the street, people are running in all directions, diving into buildings, hiding behind parked cars. You might get a few, you might not. If it was as easy as you try to make it sound, people would be doing it all the time. They don't, because it's actually quite difficult.

guns have a purpose beyond murder genius.. they are also used to defend yourself... from being murdered..

That's the theory. Trouble is, the theory doesn't work.

Take the guy who buys a gun for "home defense." Burglar comes in -- first thing he looks for are guns. The homeowner is sleeping. By the time the homeowner wakes up and sees what's going on, the burglar already has the gun on him. The guy jumps up and thinks he's going to be a hero -- the burglar shoots him -- with his own gun! If he didn't have a gun, he would have lived!

Take the guy who gets mugged on the street. Mugger points a gun at him, says, "give me your wallet." If he hands over his wallet, he loses a trivial amount of money. If he thinks he's Charles Bronson and reaches for a gun, the mugger shoots him. If he didn't have a gun, he would have lived!

Take the woman getting jumped by a rapist. If she goes limp and submits, she gets raped. Not a good thing, but survivable. If she reaches for her gun, he chokes her out. People who have never fought have no idea just how fast they lose consciousness once someone's thumbs are into their carotid. The gun falls from her limp fingers before he rapes her. Maybe he's riled up enough to kill her, too. If she didn't have a gun, she would have lived!

The whole "gun for self defense" is a fairy tale. Far more people die because they have a gun than because they don't. The criminals know how to use their guns, and they pick the time and the place. You're off guard and it's all happening so fast.

You can take it from me because this wasn't my starting position. I wasn't raised a gun-hater. My father collected guns, I hunted all through my teenage years. I had friends over the river who were Vietnam vets, I'd go to their house and read the American Rifleman and Soldier of Fortune and all that gun-loving stuff. I've shot everything from the little micro-Berettas to M-16s. And then I started reading the actual numbers -- how many people die every year because they buy into this "gun for self-defense" fairy tale.

It's a dangerous, dangerous fantasy, and it KILLS innocent people who believe it.

You know why you can't beat a casino? Because they've been doing this since the dawn of time and they know every scam you've ever heard of and a bunch that you haven't. It's the same thing with muggers. You may have a black belt in juo-jitsu and enough firepower in your waistband to start a revolution, but the mugger knows the game better than you. He has the drop on you, he has the element of surprise, and you might have won a gold medal in Marksmanship but at point blank range he only needs one bullet to rip out a major internal organ and put you down.

[mookiemcgee]

This is a BS red herring thread. The only example that was provided of a mass shooter successfully pleading insanity was 30 years ago.

I'll just re-state the obvious... Mass shooters (that survive) are successfully prosecuted for their crimes 99% of the time. Saying we as a society 'blame the gun' when these people go to jail with life sentences or death penalty is just ignorant. Clearly we blame them for their crimes.

[NomadPatriot]

The whole "gun for self defense" is a fairy tale. Far more people die because they have a gun than because they don't.

simply WOW...people actually think this way...

[jonesthecurl]

You are three times more likely to die of a shooting if you own a gun.

[NomadPatriot]

You are three times more likely to die of a shooting if you own a gun.

Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed

1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.

2. Fact: A study claiming “guns more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.” In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s “high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group.”

[jonesthecurl]

You aren't necessarily going to be killed with your own gun, but the percentage of gun-owners who are shot dead is three times higher than those who are not gun-owners. The study I saw (and admittedly it was a while ago, and I don't have access to it), specifically stated that it had not considered such questions as whether the gun-owner was a criminal, or bought a gun because they were in a high-crime area - and that therefore those might well be factors. Nevertheless, the statistic seemed remarkable enough to merit attention. It would be interesting to know if the study was repeated, with these broader questions taken into account.

[jimboston]

Also, your negative tone hurts my mellow... so I’m done..

that was easy enough

I’m not conceding you “won” or in any way made your point.

I’m conceding you’re an asshole and you refuse to discuss things like a normal person... and so I’ve made my point and I’m done.
There’s no sense repeating myself.

It’s like trying to use logic with a 3yo to explain why he can’t have a cookie before dinner.
No matter how much logic you use, or how you try to word it, or how patient you are... he’s still gonna scream and throw a tantrum.