Mass Shooter Found Dead

[Res Ipsa]

Just speaking generally I believe I have heard caution about expecting schizophrenia to produce violent people. It has been seen as prejudicial to people with mental illness and not characteristic of the illness. Perhaps in some cases mental illness is mixed with something else to produce a more violent compound.

This is true of mental illness in general. Only rare forms of mental illness cause one to become violent. But every time someone shoots up a town, particularly if they're male, white, and/or Christian/Republican, it is chalked up under the wide umbrella of "mental illness" as if that explains everything. But as Progressive like to point out, mental illness isn't unique to America. It exists worldwide, and yet we're the only nation that suffers these tragedies on a regular basis. This suggests there are other factors at play. Something other than the ubiquitous nature of firearms, of course.

I'm a fact-driven progressive who wants to point out that the factors that lead to a mass shooting can be very different in different cases. In this case, the shooter suffered from mental illness, including paranoia toward his fellow reservists and hearing voices, that led to his shooting spree. While it is absolutely true that mental illness in general does not cause increased violence, it can, in specific cases, lead to violence. This is one of those cases. An actual progressive should be driven by facts, rather than by politically inflammatory language.

Rather than play the destructive game of trying to assign the shooter to a political tribe, we should focus on the circumstances that led to the shooting. In this case, we haven't seen the common signs of political motivation. People looked at his social media accounts and the strongest evidence they were able to come up with of political motivation was clicking a like button on some posts. No one has cited actual posts or statements on social media. There is no manifesto. He hasn't been tied to extremist organizations. One of the main targets of his aggression was his fellow Army reservists.

Mental illness in this case is not some Republican excuse. Had the shooter received proper mental health care, it is extremely unlikely that all those folks would have died. The availability of mental health treatment in the U.S. is a disgrace. It's not anti-progressive to note that this specific mass shooting represents a tragic failure of mental health care. Recognizing that fact is in no way inconsistent with recognizing the role of the numbers of and easy accessibility to firearms also plays in mass shootings.

[Vēritās]

This is true of mental illness in general. Only rare forms of mental illness cause one to become violent. But every time someone shoots up a town, particularly if they're male, white, and/or Christian/Republican, it is chalked up under the wide umbrella of "mental illness" as if that explains everything. But as Progressive like to point out, mental illness isn't unique to America. It exists worldwide, and yet we're the only nation that suffers these tragedies on a regular basis. This suggests there are other factors at play. Something other than the ubiquitous nature of firearms, of course.

I'm a fact-driven progressive who wants to point out that the factors that lead to a mass shooting can be very different in different cases. In this case, the shooter suffered from mental illness, including paranoia toward his fellow reservists and hearing voices, that led to his shooting spree. While it is absolutely true that mental illness in general does not cause increased violence, it can, in specific cases, lead to violence. This is one of those cases. An actual progressive should be driven by facts, rather than by politically inflammatory language.

Rather than play the destructive game of trying to assign the shooter to a political tribe, we should focus on the circumstances that led to the shooting. In this case, we haven't seen the common signs of political motivation. People looked at his social media accounts and the strongest evidence they were able to come up with of political motivation was clicking a like button on some posts. No one has cited actual posts or statements on social media. There is no manifesto. He hasn't been tied to extremist organizations. One of the main targets of his aggression was his fellow Army reservists.

Mental illness in this case is not some Republican excuse. Had the shooter received proper mental health care, it is extremely unlikely that all those folks would have died. The availability of mental health treatment in the U.S. is a disgrace. It's not anti-progressive to note that this specific mass shooting represents a tragic failure of mental health care. Recognizing that fact is in no way inconsistent with recognizing the role of the numbers of and easy accessibility to firearms also plays in mass shootings.

Not everything is about you Res. You upset bro? You mad that your previous post didn't lure me into another silly spat with you?

Huck said he was speaking "generally" and so was I. Nothing I said in my post is inaccurate and you know it. We are talking about mental illness in general and how mass shootings are generally treated by the media. Nobody was "assigned to a political tribe." Save your sermon for someone else.

[ceeboo]

Nobody was "assigned to a political tribe." Save your sermon for someone else.

Your original thread post (in full)

The Trump loving mass shooter who liked social media posts from numerous hard core Right wing figures like Tucker Carlson and Dinesh DeSouza, has been found dead from an apparent suicide.

This post of yours, sadly, like the great majority of your posts are so thoroughly soaked with your personal political ideology that you have lost all ability to make rational and/or reasonable comments about such deeply tragic topics.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm a fact-driven progressive who wants to point out that the factors that lead to a mass shooting can be very different in different cases. In this case, the shooter suffered from mental illness, including paranoia toward his fellow reservists and hearing voices, that led to his shooting spree. While it is absolutely true that mental illness in general does not cause increased violence, it can, in specific cases, lead to violence. This is one of those cases. An actual progressive should be driven by facts, rather than by politically inflammatory language.

Rather than play the destructive game of trying to assign the shooter to a political tribe, we should focus on the circumstances that led to the shooting. In this case, we haven't seen the common signs of political motivation. People looked at his social media accounts and the strongest evidence they were able to come up with of political motivation was clicking a like button on some posts. No one has cited actual posts or statements on social media. There is no manifesto. He hasn't been tied to extremist organizations. One of the main targets of his aggression was his fellow Army reservists.

Mental illness in this case is not some Republican excuse. Had the shooter received proper mental health care, it is extremely unlikely that all those folks would have died. The availability of mental health treatment in the U.S. is a disgrace. It's not anti-progressive to note that this specific mass shooting represents a tragic failure of mental health care. Recognizing that fact is in no way inconsistent with recognizing the role of the numbers of and easy accessibility to firearms also plays in mass shootings.

Not everything is about you Res. You upset bro? You mad that your previous post didn't lure me into another silly spat with you?

Huck said he was speaking "generally" and so was I. Nothing I said in my post is inaccurate and you know it. We are talking about mental illness in general and how mass shootings are generally treated by the media. Nobody was "assigned to a political tribe." Save your sermon for someone else.

Ad hominem attack noted.

The opening post was about a specific shooter and tied it to a political tribe based only on the alleged "liking" of certain posts. As the person who pointed out the role of mental illness in this case, I felt that the last post I responded to trivialized the role of mental illness in this case by referring to mental illness as a Republican excuse for white shooters. I also objected to your generalization about what "progressives" do, and expressed my objection. I didn't interpret any of the posts in the thread as being about "me." I don't waste my time trying to think of ways to "lure" you into anything. None of my posts were about "you" -- they are about words you posted.

[Vēritās]

Nobody was "assigned to a political tribe." Save your sermon for someone else.

Your original thread post (in full)

The Trump loving mass shooter who liked social media posts from numerous hard core Right wing figures like Tucker Carlson and Dinesh DeSouza, has been found dead from an apparent suicide.

This post of yours, sadly, like the great majority of your posts are so thoroughly soaked with your personal political ideology that you have lost all ability to make rational and/or reasonable comments about such deeply tragic topics.

Sure Ceeboo. Let's just pretend there isn't a decades long history on this forum of people like you and ajax constantly suggesting Democrats are violent. It was an anecdote I threw in there just to piss off ajax, but had no idea it would trigger res. Actually, I probably should come to expect now that just about anything will trigger res.

[Vēritās]

Not everything is about you Res. You upset bro? You mad that your previous post didn't lure me into another silly spat with you?

Huck said he was speaking "generally" and so was I. Nothing I said in my post is inaccurate and you know it. We are talking about mental illness in general and how mass shootings are generally treated by the media. Nobody was "assigned to a political tribe." Save your sermon for someone else.

Ad hominem attack noted.

The opening post was about a specific shooter and tied it to a political tribe based only on the alleged "liking" of certain posts. As the person who pointed out the role of mental illness in this case, I felt that the last post I responded to trivialized the role of mental illness in this case by referring to mental illness as a Republican excuse for white shooters. I also objected to your generalization about what "progressives" do, and expressed my objection. I didn't interpret any of the posts in the thread as being about "me." I don't waste my time trying to think of ways to "lure" you into anything. None of my posts were about "you" -- they are about words you posted.

Ad hominem? Sure man, you're the victim here.

Again, I responded to Huck, nothing to do with you. You apparently took my response to mean something about you, which triggered a response that left me somewhat confused. I never questioned the role of mental illness in this instance, but Huck's post spoke about the broader issue, generally speaking which I thought might open up a broader discussion. But you want to stay focused on my initial anecdote about the shooter's political views, even though I never said it played a role in his crime. As much time as you seem to have on your hands you might consider aiming your guns at someone who is on the opposite end of your political beliefs.