Don’t Stigmatize Murderers!

elliot-rodger2Mass murder at a sunny college campus in a beach town would normally be considered “newsy,” but Elliot Rodger’s massacre at the University of California-Santa Barbara last Friday is getting surprisingly little press.

This is not a good case for liberals: The killer was an immigrant, a person of color, and the majority of his casualties resulted from attacks with a car or knife. It makes as much sense to rant about the NRA as to blame the Auto Club of America or the National Knife Collectors Association.

Rather, what we have is yet another mass murder committed by a schizophrenic — just like those of Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza.

Yes, they all used guns. Also, they were all males. They were all college-aged. They all had hair. Those are not distinctive characteristics.

When the last five mass murderers share something that only 1 percent of the population has, I think we’ve found the relevant common denominator.

Rodger had been seeing therapists since he was 8 years old. Just last year, his psychiatrist, Dr. Charles Sophy, prescribed him Risperidone, an anti-psychotic. But after looking up what Risperidone was for — schizophrenia — Rodger decided “it was the absolute wrong thing for me to take” and never did.

See, that’s the thing about schizophrenics — they don’t think they’re sick. They think the lava lamp that’s talking to them is sick.

Rodger’s “manifesto” reads like Nikolai Gogol’s “Diary of a Madman” — generally recognized as the first description of schizophrenia, except it’s a little repetitive and not well-written, no matter what that “tech guru” says.

I’m one of the few who have read all 141 pages. It is a tale of increasing delusions, paranoia, hallucinations and wild, grandiose self-assessments. In other words, it is a slightly less whiny version of Obama’s first inaugural address. (How many pages does your manifesto have to be before we can force you to take your medication?)

Rodger says of himself:

– “I saw myself as a highly intelligent and magnificent person who is meant for great things.”

– “Becoming a multimillionaire at a young age is what I am meant for.”

– “I am like a god.”

– “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”

(No — wait … Last one was Obama.)

Rodger saw every female as a “tall, hot blonde” — and, this being California, that’s at a campus that’s only 50 percent white. He viewed all couples as his sworn enemies causing his suffering.

Although Rodger loved driving his car, he “soon learned the hard way” not to drive on Friday and Saturday nights, where he “frequently saw bands of teenagers roaming the streets.” They “had pretty girls beside them,” probably on their way to “get drunk and have sex and do all sorts of fun pleasurable things that I’ve never had the chance to do. Damn them all!”

At Santa Barbara City College, he dropped his sociology class on the first day of school “because there was this extremely hot blonde girl in the class with her brute of a boyfriend.” Rodger couldn’t even sit through the whole first class with them, merely for being a couple.

Santa Monica Pier was out for him, too: “I saw young couples everywhere. … Life was too unfair to me.” On a trip to England, he refused to leave his hotel room so he wouldn’t have to see men walking with their girlfriends.

The “cruelty” of women apparently consisted of the failure of any “tall, hot blondes” to approach Rodger and ask for sex. He would walk around for hours “in the desperate hope that I might possibly cross paths with some pretty girl who would be attracted to me.”

But only once, in the entire 141-page manifesto, does Rodger attempt to speak to a girl himself. She’s a total stranger walking past him on a bridge, and he musters up the courage to say “hi.” He claims she “kept on walking” and said nothing. She probably didn’t hear him. But he called her a “foul bitch” and went to a bathroom to cry for an hour.

Although Rodger repeatedly denounces the world and everyone in it for “cruelty and injustice,” he was the bully more often than the bullied, especially as time went on, and his rage increased.

He sees an Asian guy talking to a white girl at a party, decides he’d been “insulted enough,” and roughly bumped the Asian aside. “How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl, while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from them? I thought with rage.”

Even after this unprovoked assault, the couple was nice to him, telling him he was drunk and should have some water. He stormed out of the party, but returned to “spitefully insult” the Asian.

Then he climbed up on a balcony at the party, and when some college kids joined him, he began insulting them and tried to push the girls off a 10-foot ledge.

He hectors his mother to marry “any wealthy man” because it would “be a way out of my miserable and insignificant life.” He tells her “she should sacrifice her well-being for the sake of my happiness.”

When flying first class, he says, “I took great satisfaction as I passed by all of the other people who flew economy, giving all of the younger passengers a cocky little smirk whenever they looked at me.”

Meanwhile, in 141 pages, the worst thing anyone ever did to him was not say “hi” back.

His claims that couples all over were “making out” or “passionately kissing” are probably hallucinatory. In the Starbucks line? At family dinners? They were probably holding hands and Rodger hallucinated something resembling a live sex act.

Thus, he writes that a couple in a Starbucks line were “kissing passionately … rubbing their bodies together and tongue kissing in front of everyone.” Livid, Rodger followed them to their car and threw his hot coffee on them. Utterly self-pitying, he says: “I cursed the world for condemning me to such suffering.” Then he spent five days alone in his room.

Another couple Rodger says were kissing “passionately” in the food court outside Domino’s pizza enraged him so much he followed them in his car and “splashed my iced tea all over them” — to fight “against the injustice.”

But the story that sounds the most like Gogol’s Poprishchin hearing two dogs talking in Russian is Rodger’s allegation that his stepmother bragged to him that his stepbrother, Jazz — her own 6-year-old son! — “would be a success with girls and probably lose his virginity early.”

I know Moroccan cultural mores are different, but I’m calling “auditory hallucination” on that one.

A family friend, Simon Astaire, described Rodger’s flat affect, common to schizophrenics, saying he “couldn’t look at you straight in the eye and looked at your feet. It was unbearable.”

It’s hard to feel sorry for a mass murderer, but it was cruel to Elliot Rodger to allow him to refuse medication and turn himself into a monster. It was beyond cruel to his innocent victims — as well as the other victims of psychopathic killers. But liberals are more worried about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill than the occasional mass murder.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • American1969

    Coulter is a smart @ss, but she nails it.
    As usual, leftists just don’t get it. They think that by taking guns away and having Gun-Free Zones that somehow crime will magically disappear.
    And the criminals laugh at their stupidity.

    • Skeptic7

      She’s a smartass because the leftist are driving us all mad with their pretense that they don’t understand that it’s bad people with guns.

      David Mamet who wrote: “Why I’m No Longer a Brain-dead Liberal” said: Liberals pretend not to understand how destructive their policies are.

      • Sheik Yerbouti

        They are incapable of admitting when they may have been wrong. They can instantly pivot on an issue and toss the “blame” back onto those who “interfered” with their perfect plan. It is NEVER their fault.

        The problem for us now is that they have infected the simplest minds in the nation with this tripe and it has become a culture onto itself. Without successful people to blame, it can’t exist. This is why even though they hate the people who work and have regular lives, they cling to them.

        Leftism is the way to quick power. But is it lasting? Their turnover is actually quite high. Especially now that the white leftists are being defeated by non-white leftists at every such election. They are learning that no matter how much they beg and grovel, the people they hope to con into voting for them will vote along color lines at rates in the 90% range.

        But somehow, it’s white people’s fault.

        This nut clearly had racial intent (unless the blondes he was gunning for were to be Serena, Beyoncé or Ne Ne). But that fact is being teleported to Jupiter. The leftist press (including Fox news) will not allow the truth of his intentions to see the light of day. The insanity of denial has become a culture of the press. What can possibly go wrong when you withhold information that might be vital to people’s lives?

    • Americana

      She avoided the real issue throughout the entire editorial even though she mentions it in passing. I’d say the editorial gets a big fat FAILING GRADE:

      (COuLTER) “Rather, what we have is yet another mass murder committed by a schizophrenic — just like those of Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza.”

      The SERIOUSLY mentally ill should NOT have legal access to guns. They simply shouldn’t be able to legally buy guns of ANY TYPE. This is a NO-BRAINER. A law that the **seriously** mentally ill should not retain their gun rights is a national law that could be passed without affecting any other aspect of gun laws. The seriously mentally ill should be prevented from applying for gun permits and they should have a lifelong ban on their gun rights.

      • joe

        So Eliot Johnson while he might not be able to complete college courses is not able to read?

        If one person with issues pulls a Virginia Tech with a car rather than a gun, you don”t think others won’t copy it?

        There was a car attack by a Muslim student on a North Carolina college campus. In China there was a car attack by 2 people driving cars that killed 31 some of those were by bomb blast but others were killed by being hit by the cars. Another incident which wasn’t intentional was the Santa Monica Farmer’s Market incident. There were 10 dead in that incident/

        Banning guns would be a temporary triage at best.

        Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

        Santa Monica Farmer’s Market incident
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Russell_Weller

        • Americana

          **Literacy doesn’t have word one to do w/mass murderers!** What does literacy have to do w/the actions of a paranoid schizophrenic or this guy? Let’s please leave this thread to the one topic or connected topics that directly relate to mental illness. Even the JIHAD use of cars in terrorism isn’t what this topic is about so let’s leave out the jihadi use of cars in this discussion so two of your incidents mentioned don’t qualify to be used as examples. Jihadi use of cars is a category of crime unto itself.

          I am specifically talking about the mentally ill having access to weapons that can be used anywhere and everywhere that interdiction fails to uncover the fact these mentally ill folks are packing. Yes, the mentally ill may use cars and any number of other weapons including their bare hands to kill, but, of necessity, those killings will (almost always) be more limited in scope.

          A CAR is NOT a versatile, portable weapon that can be brought inside schools and businesses and train stations and coffee shops. A car might be able to be used as a ONE-TIME weapon for blasting into a coffee shop, but is less likely to be used in mass-casualty incidents unless it’s used as a car bomb. (The incident you cited, the VAST MAJORITY of those casualties were from the BOMB, not from being run over or struck.) A car will generally be a ONE-OFF attack, thus guaranteeing a LIMITED NUMBER OF CASAULTIES if the car itself is the weapon rather than being an enhanced weapon of being a car bomb. We cannot guard against the mentally ill from having access to cars unless we rethink a great many things about our society, but we can decide to prevent them having access to guns.

          • joe

            What does literacy have to do with it?

            Well little one, a crazy person like Eliot can read the papers and learn that a car by accident or by intent will kill people.

            If said crazy person really wants to kill people and cannot purchase or otherwise obtain a gun, they may switch to another means of enacting their mayhem.

            You are purposely being obtuse.

          • Americana

            Cars generally cost a lot more than most guns do so even if a schizophrenic chose to buy a car to use as his weapon, he’s not going to buy SEVERAL and increase his attack capabilities that way. Besides, w/a single car he’s only going to be able to execute an ATTACK ONCE. If he looks for ways to cause more lethal mayhem w/a car by planning a car bombing, he’s going to run afoul of the surveillance for bombing materials.

            Is it possible he’d accomplish the same casualty rate w/a car assault as he would w/multiple guns? I doubt it. Therein lies the difference between the two weapons. Therein should lie the legal difference in how we approach deciding to abrogate someone’s gun rights.

            As far as I’m concerned, someone who’s seriously mentally ill and externalizes their illness by aggression toward others shouldn’t retain his gun rights. Some of the more extremely externally aggressive mentally ill are all too easily triggered into being a person who plans meticulously to attack w/the intent of committing mass murder.

          • joe

            A good gun will cost more than a clunker. A clunker does not have to run far just to the scene of the crime, 10 miles or less.

            You say you can only use one car. One car is all it takes to run into a crowd of people. If your car does not cut out or get stuck you can drive away for another run.

            Maybe I just read the news and can think. Maybe it is mandatory training on terrorism and how to be a hard target.

            Obviously, you do not get the concept of a copy cat.
            Besides being nice when talking about permaculture and one other topic, I pretty much know what you are going to say. You are going to dump over 90% of more of the people posting here. I wonder why you are here other than sh_ts and giggles.

          • Americana

            The concept of a copy cat is pretty simple to grasp. We can all learn how to deal w/a copy cat in the case of someone driving an errant car into a crowd. If you see a car steering wildly toward a crowd and you see a chance to mitigate the damage by driving your own car into the terrorist’s car as an obstacle or to deflect the other driver off into a position that would neutralize him, would you do that? I take each terrorist act and try to see if it’s possible for the victims to have done something individually or collectively to have helped themselves to neutralize the perpetrators before the maximum loss of life.

            So what if you think you “know what I’m going to say” on each and every topic? I know what 90% of the other people here are likely to say. That means we don’t talk over the issues? I don’t indulge in sh*ts and giggles unless someone forces me to indulge in them. I bet you wouldn’t have guessed that I’ve got absolutely no issues w/legitimate gun owners having most types of guns. I invite the hunters from the Federal Waterfowl Refuge next door inside if there’s dangerous weather, w/their weapons and w/their dogs if they’ve got them for hunting. But I also work w/police for Search and Rescue and I know those policemen don’t want to face armour-piercing bullets while on the job. Who do you think I’m going to back in this instance? Joe Blow or Joe Blue?

            I’m not going to be made to feel like I’m an obstacle or less of an American because of what I think. You’ve got AMPLE OPPORTUNITY to persuade me to your POV over time if you present the right information and you’re persuasive. If you wish to persuade me to your POV, you’re going to have to be fully versed in your subject and you’re going to have to have well reasoned positions. But I am flexible if someone gives me REASONS to be flexible.

          • Guest

            A crazy person cannot or will not copy the tactics of a jihadi uses because why?

            Because you said so?

          • Americana

            Sure, a crazy person can copy his killing tactics from anywhere. He might see something in a Superman movie that he decides is worthwhile to copy or he might read something in a book or a magazine or he might adopt a jihadist’s tactics. Whatever weapons someone chooses, everything depends on what level of lethality they’re hoping to inflict. But the fact is that the lethality of cars is more limited if they’re not used as bombs. Cars are also bulky and can only be used under certain conditions whereas guns can be used under all sorts of circumstances and in all sorts of locations.

          • joe

            If a drive can kill 10 people in one minute, that is as much as most shooters.

            If the vehicle is rather large, a large pick up SUV, truck etc, and does not get stuck or its’ engine stop, I could see a casualty count of 20 to 40 people.

            BTW the Columbine kiIIers used bombs. they just did not go off. they also did testing and preparation. If the bombs had gone off we might be looking at another 10 to 200 dead.

            So if the Columbine guys had managed to kiII with bombs along with guns, would the common denominator be the perpetrators or the guns.

            P.S. This is a trick question I know because your liberalness is showing.

          • Americana

            Based on this post, I guess it’s just FINE w/you if for the foreseeable future, w/AUTISM and ASPERGERS rates going through the roof, that the seriously mentally ill can continue to buy guns w/no impediments? One of the Columbine killers was on the Aspergers spectrum, the other was a sociopath who manipulated the other kid. I don’t consider your question to be a trick question at all, I consider it a dumb question. Because law enforcement would consider BOTH FACTORS in their planning as should we citizens when we decide what we’re willing to do to eliminate or reduce the problem. **I DON’T have a problem not allowing the seriously mentally ill to retain their gun rights.** It’s just a no-brainer for any number of reasons.

            Let’s not compare the least likeliest scenarios for the different weapon — car vs gun — since a car will always have to be used against congregated pedestrians in an open area and guns can be taken into far more densely populated venues. if a killer is able to get into a confined area where there are large numbers of people gathered, he can shoot a helluva lot more in 1 minute than 10 people.

            *In the case of Adam Lanza, his mother should have had the good sense to take him to SPLATBALL instead of a SHOOTING RANGE so he couldn’t learn to play permanent splatball.
            *In the case of Columbine, it behooves parents whose children become estranged from the parents and who become STRANGE over time to pay attention to what they’re doing in their private life in the home.

          • joe

            Even the JIHAD use of cars in terrorism isn’t what this topic is about so let’s leave out the jihadi use of cars in this discussion

            because …. “Americana” does not want to discuss it.

            A crazy person cannot learn form a news report how terrorists use common everyday objects to commit murder?

            Is that you point?

            Are crazy people stupid in that particular way where they cannot in the remotest way plan or copy the actions of others be they good or bad?

            Or do crazy people have scruples where they will commit mass murder but not in the same way a terrorists would because that would be gauche?

        • Americana

          The Santa Monica Farmer’s Market incident which demonstrates how dangerous it is for the ELDERLY to retain their driving rights past a certain point:

          (From Wikipedia)

          On the afternoon of July 16, 2003, Weller, then age 86, drove his 1992 Buick LeSabre westbound down Arizona Avenue in Santa Monica toward the city’s popularThird Street Promenade. The last few blocks of the street, before it ends at the ocean, had been closed to vehicle traffic for the biweekly farmers’ market.

          Weller’s car struck a 2003 Mercedes-Benz S430 sedan that had stopped to allow pedestrians through a crosswalk, then accelerated around a road closure sign, crashed through wooden sawhorses, and plowed through the busy marketplace crowd, traveling nearly 1,000 feet (300 m) at speeds between 40 and 60 mph (60 and 100 km/h). The entire sequence of collisions took at least 10 seconds.

          By the time the car came to a halt, ten people had been killed and 63 were injured. Weller told investigators he had accidentally placed his foot on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake, then tried to brake but could not stop. Days after the crash, Weller issued a statement saying he was distraught and heartbroken, and his attorney called it an accident.

          Some observers questioned Weller’s account; numerous witnesses and victims reported:

          Seeing no brake lights on Weller’s car, which would indicate that he was not attempting to stop;[citation needed]

          Weller stared straight ahead as he drove through the crowd, with victims flying over his windshield;[citation needed]

          Weller angrily yelled from his car “Get out of the way!” as he hit pedestrians;[1]

          That Weller avoided parked cars and produce tables on both sides of the road, steering instead directly down the middle of the crowded street;[citation needed]

          Weller did strike one vegetable stand, “sandwiching” victims with shelves and structural components from the stand;[1]

          Weller’s car came to a stop after hitting two parked cars;[1]

          That once the car had finally stopped moving, he put it into reverse and yelled, “Get out of the way, I’m going again!”;[citation needed] and

          That, upon exiting his car, cane in hand, Weller casually asked how many people he had hit;[citation needed] and

          That Weller also was heard to say, “If you saw me coming, why didn’t you get out of the way?”.

          • joe

            The last 2 sentences make you wonder if Mr Weller ran over the people due to a medical condition or if it was intentional.

            If it was intentional, then it has happened once. If it happened once what will prevent it from happening again intentionally?

            Magical thinking?

          • Americana

            There is nothing that would prevent elderly drivers from being hazards to themselves or others other than instituting regular driver tests for them. I favor driving tests for the elderly on a schedule of every six months, and even more frequently if their doctor recommends it.

            SCHIZOPHRENICS and PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENICS who direct mayhem and aggression toward strangers are a more highly predictable problem than what happens w/aging drivers. So, to me, tackling the issue of whether the seriously, aggressively mentally ill should be allowed to have guns is an issue that requires immediate legislative attention because we’ve had ample proof that this is not an issue that is adequately addressed by our present gun laws.

          • Windy Wilson

            Or mental health laws.
            Or knife laws, for that matter.
            My only question is that since IRS audits have been politicized, and since Nevada Senator Harry Reid called the peaceful Bundy supporters in the grazing fees dispute “domestic terrorists”, can we be assured that mental health laws will be enforced impartially, or will non-progressive political views be seen as dangerous psychological conditions as was the case in the Soviet Union?

      • American1969

        It’s an excellent question: If this kid had been seeing therapists since he was eight years old, how on earth did he pass a background check? How was he able to get these weapons with his history?
        Mental health is an area that has been severely neglected. Instead of being able to give some proper care, the mentally ill end up in jail instead. I agree that we need to start spending more money on Mental Health rather than incarceration.

        • Americana

          He passed a background check because the REPORTING of such people is left up to the discretion of psychiatrists involved w/his case. There is no mandatory database for those psychiatric conditions which we know to be LIFELONG CONDITIONS requiring lifelong medication and supervision. This is partly because there is such fear connected to such a database being breached and the fact it might somehow be used in employment and other decisions that would affect someone’s entire life in negative ways. My point is that such conditions already preclude living an entirely normal life so why not take the steps necessary to prevent harm to the life of someone who’s mentally ill and may not be able to stop himself from committing these acts?

          • American1969

            Good points.

      • Duh

        Already laws on the books for this. It does however require someone (therapist, parent) actually report the mentally ill person to law enforcement so they can denied when they attempt to purchase. The libs brilliant solution to this lack of reporting is just ban all gun ownership so that we hopefully keep a few deranged types for acquiring guns.

        • Americana

          There may be laws on the books for this but considering the reporting is voluntary and that someone can purchase the guns from another individual or at a gun show with no background check and no waiting period, there are still huge gaps in how this system works. Loopholes that allow the seriously mentally ill to get their hands on several guns and huge amounts of ammunition are simply insanity, to me. Those gaps are where I focus my thinking.

          I don’t WASTE ANY TIME looking at legitimate gun owners. I have HUNDREDS of legitimate gun owners traipse over the Federal Waterfowl hunting land next to my farm and I don’t worry about them whatsoever. I talk to them, make sure they realize I’ve got hundreds of farm animals out there, and I’ll offer them coffee and shelter if they get caught in a dangerous storm.

          I don’t let ANYONE get away w/attempting to use any mentally ill’s person’s actions against the SANE legitimate gun owners in this country. If there were laws on the books that ADEQUATELY addressed this, it wouldn’t be happening w/as much frequency. By the same token, I don’t let legitimate gun owners ignore the gun show loophole or any of the other flaws in our present system (no MANDATORY mental health database for those on psychiatric medications because of breaks from reality, etc.).

      • truebearing

        What should the mennally ill be allowed have? Knives? Gasoline? Poisons? Chemicals? Swords? Clubs, bats, or garrotes?

        Guns aren’t the only weapons an insane person can use to kill people, so your obsession with guns leaves a lot of other weapons still available to the unstable. Are we going to ban all of them, or write more laws that psychoths and criminals won’t follow anyway?

        What is to stop a psychopath from buying a stolen gun, or stealing one himself?

        It seem to me that you are the one ignoring the main problem: psyopaths, schizophrenics, etc. are allowed complete freedom to go freely through society, harboring all kinds of deranged thoughts and paranoia with no societal mechanism for protecting normal citizens. Maybe leftist thinking is what should be banned, since it led to the de-institutionalization of the insane.

        You want old people off the road because of one accident? What about young people texting? It causes as many accidents as drunk driving. How about a 20 year prison sentence for texting while driving?

        • Americana

          truebearing, as I stated in a previous post, don’t bother directing any more posts at me because I wont’t be answering any of yours. There are plenty of others you can choose to engage.

    • Americana

      Coulter “doesn’t get it.” She specifically mentions schizophrenia and then deliberately doesn’t connect the obvious two dots. In fact, she then goes on to specifically avoid those dots (GUNS — SERIOUSLY WACKO MENTAL ILLNESS) as much as possible!

      What Coulter does not get is that the SERIOUSLY mentally ill should NOT HAVE GUNS. Or, rather, what I think is a more truthful evaluation of Coulter’s position is that she’s not willing to connect those two dots. They should not have the legal ability to buy guns and should not have access to guns in the family home.

      (COULTER) “Rather, what we have is yet another mass murder committed by a schizophrenic — just like those of Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza.”

  • Mom

    Sex ed how to’s in adolescent boys ( as seen in kansas poster story) hidden from parents under titles of abstinance programs would distort a developing mind depending on the degree of details and enjoyment by the teacher of these sexual entitlements. Kids are taught that they are entitled to a private life at 11 years old, grilled about their personal thoughts in school under titles like ” lifeskills” and inquisitions about their families in the social and emotional learning replacing facts. Teachers have psych degrees and are told they are ” practicioners” and change agents.
    Teachers have been caught with all manners of porn watching in classrooms across the country. Just google it. Combine this with a therapist using carl rogers techniques of ” child centered therapy”, psychotropic drugs, or mood enhancers, known to cause psychosis, and it is any wonder we have these monsters coming out of schools today. Products of divorce, priveldge no religion, values clarification and experimental efforts designed by education ” labs” associated with many failed and tragic results funded by our tax dollars for politicL gain. When jeb bush and bill ayers speak at the same conference it becomes clear….( in dc a couple of years ago).
    Look up dr, shirley Mccune of McREL ( ed lab) and her 1989 speach at national governors association conference. Its on You tube. Then read her Wacky new age book. Uh hello!!!
    When will somebody make this obvious link and expose it!

  • Ken Kelso

    The problem is its so easy for people to get guns.
    Thats where things have to change.

    • adamjw2

      And knives too, right? He killed 3 people with knives and 3 with guns.

      • Ken Kelso

        You can’t bar knives. People need them for food.
        But you can bar guns and just let law enforcement have them. Any person that has a gun will go to jail and be fined.
        That is the best way to stop these crazy killings here.

        Here’s a good example.

        About the time when Sandy Hook happened, a crazy person in China stabbed 23 people in a school
        It was literally the same thing that happened in Sandy Hook, except everyone lived in that school attack in China.

        I remember everyone in the media here saying, if this crazy Chinese person had a gun, you might have had 15 or 16 dead kids.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/
        China school knife attack leaves 23 injured
        SHANNON VAN SANT CBS NEWS
        December 14, 2012,

        • adamjw2

          So we can’t ban knives because they have a purpose other than murder? Let’s apply your own logic to guns.

          You can’t ban guns because people need them for protection from knife murderers.

          There are millions of gun owners in America who don’t kill people. The problem isn’t guns.

          • Ken Kelso

            You have so many more people getting killed by these gun killings then Knives.
            You can bar guns, you can bar knives.

            I can prove your wrong.

            I remember in Australia there was the the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, which was a killing spree by Martin Bryant where he shot and killed 35 people and 23 were injured.

            After that massacre, Australia passed a new law making it so hard for people to get guns.
            Since they passed that law, there has been not one mass shooting in Australia.
            Read this article.

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
            After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.
            Will Oremus
            Dec 16, 2012

            On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

            Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

            At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

            What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

            Read more from Slate’s coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting

            There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

            Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

            There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one’s own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

            That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

          • Bob Sten

            Ken,

            You are such a monomaniacal left wing nuisance. Yes, suicides declined in australia, but homicide rates really did not:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

            I propose that you will now conveniently shift the goal posts to wanting to rid america of guns to prevent suicide. I think if it is suicide you are out to lessen, your time would be better spent counseling troubled people, and donating money to open up and staff more suicide hotlines.

            Coming on message boards to drone on and on about how our society will be a non-violent utopia once the gun is gone is overly simplistic, and dare I say, a very worn out proposal that we are inundated with daily by far left wing zombies. It’s getting old. Why do you think Piers is gone?

            And, your “efforts” certainly won’t drop the suicide rate in america.

          • Drakken

            And Australia’s violent crime has shot through the roof, you forgot to mention, and for our friends in Britain who have banned guns, that are now trying to ban knives, so good luck with your liberal feel good nonsense where gun control is concerned. I’ll give you a hint, if the govt tries banning guns, it will be game on.

          • Americana

            I would never wish to keep guns from sane gun owners but I DO WISH to keep guns from the INSANE.

            My farm is surrounded by a large Federal Waterfowl Refuge and I go over and alert the hunters to the fact I’ve got Toulouse geese and various breeds of heritage turkeys as well as horses roaming my pastures. It would be very easy for hunters to mistake some of those turkeys and geese for acceptable species to hunt if they didn’t pay attention to the fence lines and get a good look at the entire bird rather than just a PART!

            But preventing the insane and the seriously mentally ill from acquiring guns is a NO-BRAINER! (Forgive the punny humor but this isn’t a funny situation, at all!). No one who is that seriously mentally ill that they have fantasies about killing should have access to guns. PERIOD. If someone obviously becomes a schizophrenic as they go into their teens, then they shouldn’t be able to retain their gun rights. On the other hand, people who have mental issues but who have accepted their condition and understand their condition and they are willing to remain on medication? I believe they’ve demonstrated they can potentially retain their gun rights for life.

        • Jakareh

          The problem with the likes of you takings guns away from the rest of us is that if you try we’ll kill you.

          • Debbie G

            Haha…good one Jak!

        • Rick

          You are assuming the Chinese victims are back at 100%. That us like saying that 10 to 50% of people diagnosed with a particular type of cancer are survivors and do nit go into remission. What you the cancer statistics any survivors do not take into account is the quality of life afterwards. Or take into account SARs. there were 2 early survivors of a treatment with steroids. They were confined to wheelchairs with extremely brittle bones. So don;t blow smoke up my @ss and tell me that those 23 kids were A-Ok or that it was much better.

          Also over time spree killers or serial killers will change their tactics. They will uses cars, poison or bombs.

        • Rick

          WTFU!

          Banning guns will only give a brief dip in casualties until spree killers or serial killers evolve their tactics.

          Kunming train station attack leaves dozens dead

          http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kunming-train-station-attack-leaves-dozens-dead-1.2556302

          Urumqi attack kills 31 in China’s Xinjiang region

          http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-27502652

          • Americana

            Those were both SEPARATIST ATTACKS w/MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS and were not single, mentally ill individuals committing the attacks. There have been some attacks w/knives in China by mentally ill individuals and in some cases, they have managed to kill several in one attack. But there’s no point whatsoever in claiming that separatists making political statements by their attacks have anything to say about controlling the capabilities of the seriously mentally ill from making attacks.

        • Rick

          Can we assume that 1005 of future bombing attempts by teenagers or 20 somethings will all fail.

          How are you going to ban all bomb making material?

          Please tell us how you would ban bomb making material. This out to be good. I have a bag popcorn ready so I can sit back and read your response.

          “Although their motives remain unclear, the personal journals of the perpetrators document that they wished their actions to rival the Oklahoma City bombing. The attack has been referred to by USA Today as a suicidal attack [which was] planned as a grand – if badly implemented – terrorist bombing.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

        • Gee

          And if you disarm all the legal gun owners – we know that the criminals will obey that law – right?
          Many more people are killed every year in America by cars – so when are they going to be banned?

        • Skeptic7

          The average person faces the same criminals who the police face, because criminals tend to victimize average people.

          The principal at Sandy Hook was cruelly required by government to leave her Conceal Carry Weapon in her car. She never had a fighting chance, although she was trained to fight back.

          How often do the parent of Sandy Hook dream that they are in that school or classroom with a gun, and kill that gunmen before he slaughters their children? I bet a good number of them have that fantasy or dream.

          Now, there are armed guards at the surrounding schools.

          • SD

            This is news to me. I had not heard of the principle being martyred on the altar of the Left.

            But it is so.

    • Atikva

      Legally, no, it’s not easy at all to get ONE gun, especially in certain States where it’s severely restricted.

      Illegally, yes, it’s much easier. Which is why any ban would not only be utterly useless but dangerous, as it would leave good citizens defenseless in front of those illegally armed. These thugs are legion, and they are fervently hoping that the government will ban (legal) guns, like it is the case in Europe. Then they would be able to safely attack anyone they feel like without risk – like in Brussels these past days, for instance.

      • Ken Kelso

        Tell me one thing, do you support or oppose Australia’s very strict gun laws? Or you would have it in Australia where its very easy to get guns like in the U.S..
        Read this article.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
        After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.
        Will Oremus
        Dec 16, 2012

        • Sean

          You are comparing apples and oranges. there are multiple factors/variables.

          Hold constant the variables for the prevalence of the warrior gene and heterogeneity of the population. Australia was monochrome for a whole lot longer than America. It makes a difference. Also Australia has stricter immigration laws. It is harder to gel a culture if you keep adding to it. Things are in constant uproar.

          Wait until you get a population of 25% Muslim, then we will talk.

        • Richard

          Yes, no mass shootings, but neither has New Zealand which did not enact the same draconian laws. Perhaps you would care to comment on Sydneys west where the gangs still have their handguns and semi automatic weapons and use them on a regular basis

        • Bob Sten

          Ken,

          Guns are very commonly owned in germany and sweden. Why do few mass shootings there?

        • Bob Sten

          Ken,

          Young black males are less than 9% of the population, but commit over 50% of the homicides.

          Do you think young black males should be made illegal too?

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      My father bought me my first firearm … a .22-lr Browning semi-auto … for Christmas in 1962 (I was 13). I’ve owned hundreds of guns, since then, ranging from black powder weapons to a Barrett .50-cal. I have never killed a human being since Vietnam.

      I conceal carry, here in Illinois. I hope I never have to use my weapon. But I will, if it is justified.

      But Ken, you say, “That’s where things have to change.” But where does it end? There’s already people in the government who say that combat veterans are dangerous, and should be barred from owning a gun.

      We can agree about people who serious mental disorders … like paranoid Schizophrenia. But even then, you have to take into account their past. It shouldn’t be, “This person has been diagnosed with X disease, therefore, they should be barred from owning a gun.”

      The Left will push their agenda on guns, incrementally, until the Second Amendment is completely toothless. That is their goal. Make no mistake about it.

      • Ken Kelso

        There’s way to many bad people getting guns and thats why so many innocents are being killed and maimed.
        The only way to stop these killings is to bar guns completely and just let law enforcement have guns.

        • Erniesam

          To let only law enforcement have guns is no a way a guarantee as we have seen in the shootings in Finland, Germany and the Netherlands. It’s true that when guns are legal it is easiers for a sick person to get guns, but it’s also easier to stop this person. When criminals know that people might have a gun and they don’t know who chances are they will think twice to commit a crime.

          The main problem in the US are the gun free zones. I get that principle when one is able to actually control the borders of that zone effectivle, but there’s no way to do that. I believe if one could effectively ensure that no guns could enter the US many if not all gun owners would be willing to give up their guns. But this is simply not possible. Since there are so many guns in the country AND the influx of guns cannot be controlled or checked I think it is a CRIME to install gun free zones.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Your solution would lead to civil war. There’s no way that you can confiscate America’s guns, without such a brutal conflict. The guarantee of every right in the Bill of Rights is ownership of a gun or guns.

          Law enforcement? I just watched a video, a few weeks ago, in which law enforcement … armed with guns, tactical vests, and a canine unit … killed a homeless man whose crime was sleeping in the desert. He had a knife, and had dropped it, when they opened fire.

          When only law enforcement … and therefore government … are the only ones armed, we are all at risk.

          I hasten to point out that I have been all over the world, and seen refugees of all kinds and stripes. They ALL have one thing in common … they are unarmed.

          • Ken Kelso

            Are their some bad law enforcement people? Ofcourse.
            But do you see law enforcement people going into schools and shopping centers and killing all these innocent people? No
            Look at all the gangs, criminals who have guns and how easy it is to get guns.
            The only way to stop this is what I posted above.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Ken, I don’t think we can come to an agreement, here. We are at two opposite ends of the spectrum. You want guns banned and confiscated. I want free access to guns, as was the intention of the Second Amendment.

            How can we have a meeting of the minds? However, you will find that … in America … yours is the minority opinion, by far.

        • Wtfu

          Uhh shill, I mean “Ken”, you realized the right way to address the issue in your prior statement, even if you totally miss the point and parrot the lines of totalitarians everywhere. “There’s way to many bad people” well, why not deal with just the bad people? Why infringe on the liberty of the rest of us? Too many cars get stolen, so,the answer is to ban cars? Bank robberies? Ban banks. Swat teams killing innocents? Ban swat teams. That thought probably turns your little liberal bowels to water. You lack logical and moral consistency in your arguments.

    • CowboyUp

      The problem is people assaulting and murdering people, and leftists fighting proven remedies to that problem tooth and nail.

      It will always be easy for people to get guns in a country where hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds or thousands of tons of illegal drugs are smuggled across the border every year. Good luck changing that.

    • Bob Sten

      Ken, stop being such a brainwashed left winger. Half of his victims were stabbed to death.

      Guns aren’t to blame. This sicko was to blame.

      • Ken Kelso

        Bob, just answer my question which i posted above.

        Do you support or oppose Australia’s very strict gun laws? Or you would have it in Australia where its very easy to get guns like in the U.S..

        Read this article.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
        After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.
        Will Oremus
        Dec 16, 2012

        • Bob Sten

          Ken,

          I’m a card carrying NRA member. So what do you think?

        • donqpublic

          Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
          Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
          Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6]
          Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.[7]

          Australia where it’s more humane to die by smoke inhalation than lead poisoning.

        • seewithyourowneyes

          Idaho, New Hampshire and Utah have very loose gun laws, but they have low homicide rates comparable to Europe’s. Chicago and New Orleans have very tight gun laws, but homicide rates comparable to Jamaica’s. (Jamaica also has very tight gun laws.)

          • Americana

            It’s not really demographically reasonable to compare either rural New Hampshire and Utah w/two cities w/the populations that also have incredible crime rates.

          • seewithyourowneyes

            It is perfectly reasonable if you’re claiming that guns are the primary cause of high homicide rates! Name me one American city, demographically similar to Chicago or New Orleans, whose looser gun laws have resulted in higher homicide rates over the last decade.

          • Bob Sten

            americana,

            Why? Because it contradicts your dogma? Sometimes inconvenient facts get in your way when your beliefs are wrong. Deal with it.

      • 95Theses

        Problem solved!

  • De Doc

    And some nuts were blaming his rage on ‘White Privilege.’ They obviously had not read his manifesto (easily found online).

  • David

    Is this article claiming that Elliot Rodger is less than culpable for his crimes? I am not a psychiatrist or an attorney so I don’t know at which point being mentally unhinged translates into not guilty by reason of insanity. I’m also one of the few people to read his autobiography and while I agree that the guy is Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs it seems to me like he still understood the basic difference between right and wrong. I agree that he may have had schizophrenic tendencies but it also seems like he has to spend a long time talking himself into the heinous acts he’s going to commit and justifying and rationalizing them to himself; the same as all evil people do.

    Also, just because he has a distorted view of the world doesn’t mean that he hallucinated things. Let me give an example, Coulter writes, “Rodger’s allegation that his stepmother bragged to him that his
    stepbrother, Jazz — her own 6-year-old son! — “would be a success with
    girls and probably lose his virginity early.”

    I know Moroccan cultural mores are different, but I’m calling “auditory hallucination” on that one.”
    Rodger’s stepmother clearly didn’t like him, probably in part ’cause he was constantly complaining about how girls didn’t find him attractive, so she might have said something as simple and G-rated as, “I’m sure girls will like you,” to his brother Jazz, and then Elliot recounts the implication he hears in his manifesto.

    I don’t know. If somebody else has some insight into this I would like to hear it.

    • Ren

      Consider what the Dunning–Kruger effect and how it works with someone who is increasingly socially isolated.

      Yesterday, I was driving along the interstate and i saw what I thought were a row of houses. Well, I didn’t remember a row of houses there. Also a row of houses there did not make any sense especially that close together. I knew what I saw probably wasn’t correct so I glanced again and I saw it was a row of trees. Yes, my eyes are not in great shape. There is another effect where the mind fills in details that it can’t make out. You would have to read some articles on vision. But add that effect with social isolation and the Dunning–Kruger effect and it would not be hard for a person to be delusional.

      That said Eliot Rodger was redeemable. Education or knowledge of various jobs and tasks would have gone a long way to cure him of his hubris (Which i see in a lot of people from politicians and many others. there is the aphorism that “the less you know the easier you think it is to do it).

      The social isolation would be harder to overcome. You can tell people you will know be friends with whoever. I blame Eliot, his father and school teachers on this one. First was to get him over his hang up over blondes and his other misconceptions about people.

      A lot of people have hang ups about blondes. The hair care industry sell a lot of product to wanna be blondes. Even black women want to be blonde. Notice also that his Dad’s second wife was a lot blonder than his first wife. she actually looks like she is legally blonde and not brunette. Maybe some of his dad’s craziness rubbed off on him and grew.

      I think if Eliot had gotten a home run with a decent looking brunette, she would have had him whipped and for the most part cured him of his blonde ambition. Of course you are not out of the woods at that point (you could be), but the problems tend to be much less dramatic for society.

      • Skeptic7

        Aspergers, like the most of the other killers.

        • Windy Wilson

          But it’s Asperger’s with something else. Psychosis or Schizophrenia or something, because there are millions of people with Asperger’s Syndrome out there, and the percentage who do mass murder are vanishingly small. Perhaps it goes back to the “loner” thing talked about in the 60′s and the political assassins, so the face blindness or social blindess of Asperger’s is dangerous when combined with a hostility or anger.

          • BS77

            The Elephant in the room no one wants to see…….: Medication. Psychiatrists and doctors have been prescribing many dangerous mind altering drugs for decades now. All the listed shooters in the article were on or off some type of anti depressant, anti psychotic or mood altering drug. These drugs must be examined further…from everything I have read , they are extremely dangerous….to be on them, or to suddenly get off them…..these are Frankenstein drugs, Jeckyll and Hyde drugs…however you want to describe them…drugs that alter emotion and consciousness in unpredictable ways….VERY dangerous.

          • DD

            Let’s get serious. These drugs they are using are a one trick pony.

            They are as effective in treating mental health as Lipitor is in treating cholesterol.

            They are using one drug to depress one chemical in the body and scr_wing up the the whole interconnected web of chemistry.

            It is as stupid to use these drugs as much as they do as it is to rely on steroids to get muscular and stay healthy over the long haul or use Lipitor over the long haul. We will see it soon.

          • Windy Wilson

            I think you are right about the various prescription and illegal psychoactive drugs, even though in this particular case the Isla Vista murderer allegedly was not taking any drugs — supposedly he was prescribed a drug and when he read that it was a drug to treat schizophrenia, he decided it wasn’t for him.

        • Sean

          I have some problems with this. They take computer chips with blemishes in the silicon circuitry and use them. stuff they use to throw out. They can program around it and the chip is just fine.

          What this means in education and child raising is that it might take different techniques and/or more monitoring of kids with this brain architecture, but they are by no means “automatically” lost and in need of warehousing or a “there there now. poor boy”

  • Skeptic7

    Aspergers. Most of the recent mass killers had some type of Aspergers and had been to therapy. Aspergers’ symptoms include mind blindness – the inability to understand how other people think, and the inability to relate to them or form bonds, also the voluntary mutism – hardly speaking. Why do they continue to push mainstreaming kids with mental handicaps when it can be more distressing for the child to see what others have, that he can’t someone manage…and he doesn’t understand why.

  • RSVN6768

    already a place where only cops have guns, free meds, free food, don’t have to work, free housing but they still cant stop murder– its called prison

  • Gloria Stewart

    In the last paragraph of Ann Coulter’s column she brings up a very dangerous idea. As a Conservative and an attorney, she should realize it. How could Elliot Rodgers as a legal adult be forced to take medication absent a law that would compel it? And what would the law, which would have to be written in a very general way, have to say? A person can be forced to take medication if he has schizophrenia? How long do you think (give me a ballpark figure) it would take bureaucrats to define schizophrenia downward to include politically incorrect thoughts. Perhaps Ms Coulter should study the later years of the Soviet Union during which time political dissidents were sent, not to Gulags but to mental hospitals. Their thoughts and/or their political activities which opposed the Soviet Union were sufficient grounds for this incarceration.

    By the way, does anyone know what glossolalia is? It is known as speaking in tongues. Fundamentalist Christians believe that in a congregation that is prayerful the Holy Ghost will be present and will speak to each person in a tongue known only to the Holy Ghost and to one person. If one were to observe this ceremony he would see people waving their hands, perhaps rolling on the ground and speaking in an unknown tongue. Is this a religious experience or a schizophrenic event? Would you like the government through one or more of its agents to decide?

    One of the prices we have to pay for living in a free country is that we do not incarcerate people for a criminal act they may perform in the future. Ms Coulter should be careful what she wishes for: she may get it.

    • Americana

      The issue of mandating medication for a psychiatric condition and finding the political will across multiple parties for mandating medication for a political condition are two separate things. From what I know, this scenario described by Gloria Stewart has never happened in the United States and it would take sooooooooo many complicit adults to achieve this as a political aim, I don’t believe it’s even rational to suggest it. Or, rather, it’s rational to suggest it but for other reasons. Trying to pretend that we are anywhere near approaching the risks of political dissent being quashed in the fashion that existed in the Soviet Union is insanity. On the other hand, we have had Communist witch hunts that achieved pretty much the same thing.

      I don’t know I’ve ever heard of the speaking in tongues thing to lead to someone going out and leading an insurrection! If the government felt glossolalia represented a danger to civil society, they would have long since intervened since we’ve had Christian sects speaking in tongues since forever. Psychiatrists would laugh at this concept of speaking in tongues being mistaken for schizophrenia and requiring the treatment that schizophrenia requires. If this is going to be the new verbal standard for identifying schizophrenia, they might soon be needing to treat the comedians Sacha Baron Cohen and Jim Carrey

      Ann Coulter didn’t wish for anything in this columns. In fact, it seemed she wished that the situation would continue just as it is — that nothing be done about the seriously mentally ill having continued rights to gun ownership. She barely began to scratch the realties of the situation before she ended her column in an attempt to AVOID dealing w/the real issues involved w/this episode. One of the prices we have to pay for living in a free country is that we do not incarcerate people for a criminal act they might perform in the future. What we should also consider, because we live in a free country where we allow schizophrenics many freedoms, is that their freedom to be in society is must be dependent on them taking medications that prevent their malicious actions if, indeed, they are schizophrenics who outwardly project malice and mayhem that is beyond their control.

    • seewithyourowneyes

      A difficult issue. But, at the minimum, we should require those of the mentally ill who have already been convicted of a violent crime to medicate their conditions. If they refuse, they should not be allowed to use any sort of “mental state” defense in any future trials for future violent crimes.

  • Gloria Stewart

    Americana is correct that the scenario I suggested has never been done. I never said it had been. Would she like a long list of actions taken by this current administration that have never been done before and were done without regard to the Constitution. Please remember that freedom is lost in increments.

    Excuse me? Communist witchhunts? If Americana believes that the hunt for Communists was a witchhunt, I suggest the he or she google the Venona Transcripts.

    Also Americana should reread my posting. I never said that glossolalia would lead to an insurrection. I merely suggested that one man’s method of prayer may be another man’s psychotic episode. Who gets to define it? It does not matter unless the definition is in the hands of someone with state power. “The government would have long since intervened”? We have never before had an administration with such contempt for the Constitution.

    The criteria for identifying mental illnesses are not rigid and can be defined downward. As a matter of fact Ms Coulter did suggest forced medication in her last paragraph. If compulsory medication is the price to pay for living in a free society, absent a criminal act, then we are at the top of a slippery slope.

    • Americana

      Laws that are changed because of changing societal circumstances over time is not quite the same as “freedom being lost in increments.” Our laws and our legislation will never stop evolving as our society changes and circumstances change. I believe if we are vigilant enough in the people we elect and our knowledge of our country’s circumstances and our laws, we have the correct balance of power. If there are true miscarriages of power they can be corrected by the next elected group of officials. We will never control the entire political spectrum among America’s population, we can only hope we strive for the best possible governance each time around.

      No one would confuse speaking in tongues in church w/a psychotic roaming about on the street. I’ve never heard of glossolalia being exercised spontaneously at will all over the place so I don’t see how it is anyone w/”state power” would ever try to label it as a psychiatric issue. As for classifications of mental illnesses, I don’t believe you’ll ever find any classifications redefined in a way that’s deleterious to society. As for whether or not those who suffer from mental illness can be forced to take medication, I believe this is very much an issue we should discuss as a society. It is a slippery slope, but you can’t ignore the potential represented by the violently mentally ill. Based on what has historically been done, the protection of the many has generally always taken precedence over the few.

      • Gloria Stewart

        Laws that are changed due to changing societal circumstances should not abrogate basic human rights. The founding fathers could not have envisioned modern technology, but they understood human nature, and they understood history.
        I am not as optimistic as Americana. With each administration in recent decades the growth of the federal government has expanded, perhaps less under Republicans than under Democrats, but it has expanded none the less. It is and should be anathema to the American people (except under very limited circumstanced) to force a medical treatment on a person with or without incarceration in a mental hospital.
        When I brought up Glossolalia it was to make this point: If one is allowed to force medicine and/or incarceration on a person absent a criminal predicate, then that action will be based on perceived unorthodox behavior and/or perceived unorthodox thought. What may start out as action against a few will increase because those in power and the bureaucracies they spawn will define mental illness downward.
        Do you want to give the government that power? Do you want the psychiatric industry to define orthodox behavior? Do you doubt that the Obamas view the American population as potentially one great school lunch program?

  • Gloria Stewart

    To See with your own eyes: Not a bad suggestion. Convicted felons, even after release, lose some of their liberties – for example the right to vote or the ability to be bonded. Actually, the situation with the mentally ill is not a problem because it has no answer, and problems have answers. It is a situation, and situations have trade offs. The issue should be thoroughly discussed.

  • tickletik

    Quick comment

    I like Ann’s take, but I would really like to hear what Ann thinks of heartistes take on it.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/elliot-rodger-sexual-entitlement-father-abandonment-and-the-anti-boy-therapy-culture/

  • fpm

    The only solution is to ban communists, socialists and leftists.

  • MrUniteUs1

    Leftist or rightist., Got upset when he saw white women talking to Black and Asian men.
    Privileged kid, look down on others.

    • Bob Sten

      Actually he was half asian. He was demented. No reason to try to bash whites with this one “mruniteus1″.

      • MrUniteUs1

        I didn’t mention whites you did.

        Elliot Rodgers in his own words.

        “I soon became frustrated that no one was paying any
        attention to me, particularly the girls. I saw girls talking to other
        guys who looked like obnoxious slobs, but none of them showed any
        interest in me. As my frustration grew, so did my anger. I came across
        this Asian guy who was talking to a white girl.

        The sight of that filled me with rage. I always felt as if white
        girls thought less of me because I was half-Asian, but then I see this
        white girl at the party talking to a full-blooded Asian. I never had
        that kind of attention from a white girl! And white girls are the only
        girls I’m attracted to, especially the blondes.

        How could an ugly Asian attract the attention of a white girl,
        while a beautiful Eurasian like myself never had any attention from
        them? I thought with rage”

        • Bob Sten

          Oh, OK “Mruniteus1″, this guy hated white girls and wanted to kill as many blondes as possible, so you want to blame white people for that.

          Demented thinking there, but I guess if you hate white people like he did, it must make some kind of “logical” sense to you.

          • MrUniteUs1

            Bob you are confused. Some of my best relatives are white.

          • Bob Sten

            Yeah, yeah, I can’t hate whitey. Some of my best friends are white.

            Heard it before. zzzzzzz

          • MrUniteUs1

            Read again slowly. One word at time.
            Bob you are confused. Some of my best RELATIVES are white.

  • Bob Sten

    Left wing idiotic views on guns

  • http://ajweberman.net ajweberman
    • MrUniteUs1

      This information should be widely publicized. Thanks for sharing.
      In addition could have desensitized to murder at an early age.
      His grandfather gained by famed by distributing pictures of dead holocaust victims. His father fame gained fame by co-directing a film about young people killing each other, Hunger Games. Elliot gained fame by actually killing young people.

      • http://ajweberman.net ajweberman

        nah, he was just evil – was going to kill his half brother but changed his mind. There is no excuse for him – he is a poor excuse for a human being sir

  • MrUniteUs1
    • Bob Sten

      zactly

  • CurmudgyOne

    And, a point not mentioned in the article or previous comments: The Federal form required to purchase a gun has a question similar to this one on a CCW application:

    “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

    The question doesn’t go far enough, and it is a voluntary answer (which is NOT checked in the background exam, because of HIPAA regulations), but it indicates that there are already regs against mentaly ill persons buying guns.

    It’s pretty much out of touch, though, since it requires a Court to say the purchaser is mentally ill. Elliot Rodger could have honestly answered this question, “No.” In fact, he certainly did answer it that way.