By Ann Coulter 10/07/2015 The media act as if theyre performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner. Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years. The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While Im here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?) Theres a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that wont work, blame it on guns. The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They dont want to reward the fiend with publicity! But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: Its a crazy person. How long is this going to go on? When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter. Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness cant be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill? Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws. True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people. Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness both imminent and physical as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards you might almost call them common sense allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors. The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings. According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this: Austria, 175, Finland, 218 Germany, 175 Sweden, 114 England, 93 The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. voluntarily or involuntarily is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340. After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Heres an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine? Liberals will howl about stigmatizing the mentally ill, but they sure dont mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country. But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population I think weve found the crucial ingredient! (Excerpt) Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/the-problem-isnt-guns-or-white-men/ Okay, before it starts, just get it all out about Ann Coulter. Then take a deep breath and read her op-Ed. Ann is correct in her comments. It seems that after JFK was assassinated his work for those with mental problems died with him, because by 1977 psychiatric hospitals had bee reduced or closed to a total capacity of 160,000 nationwide. If no one remembers our history Pres. J. Carter was our leader that gave us High unemployment, High Taxes, and Stagflation... Who suffered most? The mentally impaired. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690151 Let's get to the nitty gritty of the matter. We have little to no facilities to care for the mentally ill. Those that can't cope are the homeless and those like Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Roof and yes Harper-Mercer should have been in-patients at facilities that could treat them. However, our president and his Liberal followers prefer to politicize the issue and sweep other shooters under the rug that might impair their political goals. They'd rather, "If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that wont work, blame it on guns".
The media should never report too much about a perpetrator, regardless of race, nationality or mental health. Names and tactics ought to be concealed from the public as much as possible, and only revealed to those who have a familial, scientific, policing or academic interest (and only after they sign a NDA). As to your other points, I do think that addressing mental health is important, but I'm not entirely sure that involuntary commitment is the way to go. If requiring people to register their guns and pass a variety of background, mental health and licensing checks is a serious infringement upon personal liberty, than how grievous is the act of imprisoning a person against their will prior to having committed a crime?
If you'd like to behave like an adult and provide some rationale for this assessment, by all means, do so. Otherwise, I'll not be responding in the future.
I might take it more seriously if you made a lick of sense. You don't want the media to mention tactics ( we call that MO) or race? Like I said gibberish.
You may want to just go ahead and re-read my post. What I said is that very little should be revealed about the perpetrator or his tactics, regardless of race/nationality/mental health issues. I justified this statement by linking to a credible source that discusses two separate studies. One study concludes that mass killers study the media to find out how previous mass killers did it, and that they often desire the enormous media attention given to those past killers. The other study concludes that mass killings occur in clusters, and that there is ample evidence to believe that irresponsible coverage of these killers actually inspires more shootings. I urge you to be more thorough in your reading in the future.
Doesn't the fact that someone idol worships and acts like these individuals (I'm assuming you're suggesting they're copy-cats) make them easier to spot?
I don't know, to be honest. I mean, when I was growing up, I knew a couple of people who were really interested in serial killers and the like. They didn't really glorify them, they just took an interest in them. They have yet to engage in any mass killings, and still knowing them, I am 100% certain they never would. I think the difficulty is separating the wheat from the chaff - how to tell somebody who has a bit of a morbid curiousity from somebody who really plans to do something? It never occurred to me to tell someone about it anyways. That said, there are often alot of signs that only really become apparent in retrospect. That's a tough question.
Laughable. There are multiple mass shootings that meet that standard in the city of Chicago, they just don't kill a lot of people in the process but they do wound many per incident. The sum total is the carnage you have today, the 400th homicide in the city. Plus the bangers have had decades of drug wars knowing what to do. I'd get a little knowledge about how criminals, even the nut cases behave before showing what you don't know. If you dealing with some like a Zeta or Kaibil or more likely someone associated with them, then you have a whole different animal. They don't "research" anything that they know already.
This is likely going to be my last response to you, because it's abundantly clear that you seem to view this as some sort of blood sport, where the goal of discussion is to feel like you've thoroughly stomped "the other guy." I'm not here for that, and I don't respect that. But I'm willing to set that aside once more and give it another shot. It seems to me that you aren't distinguishing between violence between known gang members, and some random dude deciding to kill large amounts of strangers for no particular reason outside of killing. These are two very different types of crimes, with utterly different motivations. In the case of targeted mass shootings, there are two typical motivations: gang and domestic. You'll either have a person kill others as part of gang warfare, or you'll have a case of domestic violence, typically a man killing his wife and kids. In the case of random mass shootings, what you have is people going out specifically to kill as many people as possible. It might be targeted in the sense that they are looking for a particular type of victim - black, or women, or Christians, or jocks, or whatever. But they don't know who specifically they are going to kill, they just know they are going to kill. These types of killings are easily identifiable with even a cursory glance at the context they took place in. These are also the types of shootings addressed by the studies I've listed above. Feel free to address those studies, by the way, or provide some of your own to add weight to your argument.
What's abundantly clear is that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Various Muslim web sites will tell you what need to know if you want to meet the proverbial virgins. It's not exactly like they have an app or a study in "how to." If you want to see what the real pros can do, you can look into the Mumbai shooters.
\ Under "Natural Law" and the intent of the lVX Amendment "Son follows the condition of his father." and that Chris Harper Mercer's father was a British subject when he shot off his wad and impregnated a black American woman from the hood in L.A. Chris Mercer was a limey by "Natural Law." Chris Mercer being half black is just as much black as Barack Obama. But the MSM didn't report it that way. But Mercer and Obama have more in common, both of their fathers were British Subjects and according to Natural Law that the U.S. Constitution is based upon, Mercer was just as much of being an American as Obama is.
Of course, no cogent response. That was expected. The commonality among mass shooters is virtually zip, except for motivation for and mental illness.
Notoriety is sometimes sought after, and could be the final benefit to being pushed over the edge and do a mass shooting. Taking that away might, just might, help curb some crazies ideas. It should be a standard format when this thing happens.
As usual, idiot Ann Coulter makes an ass of herself. The media shouldn't report on the perpetrators because that is inspiring to the other would-be deranged among us who are also mad about something and looking for a shocking end. It's the main reason we keep having these shootings. When one of them happens, our media spends two months doing near 24 hour coverage of everything. I'm surprised they haven't dragged family pets onto the news yet to ask them about THEIR reaction. And then they have to do the follow-ups. "Ma'm it's been 6 months, how do you feel now?" "It still sucks, people are still dead" "Ma'm it's been a year, how do you feel now, how are you coping" "I wish my loved ones were still here. This shooting has ruined our lives". We need to stop the mass media coverage. We need to stop showing the nuts the best ways to inflict pain and suffering. As it stands now, the media coverage after every one of these shootings is basically an advertisement for how best to hurt people. That needs to stop. And Agent Smith needs to do that skin-over-the-mouth thing on Ann Coulter already. The entire human race would be the better for it.
One of the hero's that stopped the Islamist attack on the French train this summer was supposed to be on campus the day of the shooting and in the building where the attack occurred. Now a second one of the heros was stabbed multiple times in Sacramento: Spencer Stone, hero in French train attack, is stabbed in Sacramento Officers responded to a report of a stabbing and found a man in his 20s who had been stabbed multiple times in his upper body and was in critical condition, Sacramento Police Officer Traci Trapani said. The man was leaving one of the businesses and was walking east when he had an argument with an “unknown suspect,” Trapani said. The assailant pulled out a knife and stabbed the man multiple times. Stone, a 23-year-old U.S. airman from Carmichael, Calif., was the first American to tackle a gunman aboard the Paris-bound train. Stone, who was with his childhood friends Alek Skarlatos and Anthony Sadler, was awakened by the sound of a gunshot in their railway carriage. He looked up and saw an assailant at the end of the car holding an AK-47. The friends ran down the length of the carriage and tackled the gunman. Stone locked him in a chokehold while Skarlatos snatched his gun away. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-spencer-stone-stabbed-in-sacramento-20151008-story.html
It's IMPOSSIBLE to spot who would actually do this sort of thing! If "mental health professionals" screened 1000 people, maybe they'd lock up 10, 10 who would have never done anything, and 5 of the 990 that passed the screening would do a mass shooting. Mental Health care isn't an absolute science, none of them can PREDICT who will commit a crime like these.
Another key factor is the almost rampant prescribing of drugs that can induce psychotic behavior { the drug inserts will even caution }. How many and what kinds of prescription drugs was this shooter on.
We could always just hide it all, and not cover it, so nobody except those locally even know about it? The govt could force any related videos to be removed. That would certainly make it harder for anyone to copy? Or, we could just be China or any generic Communist media country=) Media needs this for click bait. The web makes everything seem smaller. I'm torn actually. I want to know the statistics and who these people are, but I don't want other psychos who crave the same attention to get it. Maybe the national news should adjust how they report? Be quick about it and call it a day. Stop interviewing EVERYONE who's a witness. And then maybe our politicians could shut the blank up about it too? Our dumb a$$ Potus doesn't even know how to keep his mouth shut and use it for future votes.
