Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

NOT GOOD, Connecticut shooter was diagnosed with Aspergers..

Page 27 of 28 [ 446 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Triple__B
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 141

19 Feb 2013, 11:21 pm

Yeah on the Frontline PBS show that just aired, they seemed to key in on his AS over and over. They didn't say "his Asperger's caused him to do this," but they definitely were trying to get that point across firmly.


_________________
AQ -48
EQ - 6
Your Aspie score: 164 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 29 of 200
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world. Not even our troubles. ~ Charles Chaplin


rapidroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,411
Location: Ontario Canada

19 Feb 2013, 11:33 pm

That was a tough read, still part of the picture is missing. I can see if he had a meltdown grabed a gun and shot up the place that can be the fault of Asperger however this was long in the making and too well planned. I think they need to investigate the personallity disorder part that has been reported meny times more as I beleave that will paint the picture of why he did it. He sounded extreamly disturbed and sounded like he had major mental issues. The asperger expeirence may have helped set the stage in some way for his thoughts on life however it can begin to explain what he did. I know I can't relate to most of the artical as I have never ever felt like that. I would not be surprised to learn he missed a few diagnosis either, his blood was just so cold.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

21 Feb 2013, 2:29 am

Tyri0n wrote:
Autistic people commit crimes at far lower rates than the general population. That includes Aspergers. Most of us have less desire for human companionship, so being shut out doesn't hurt as much as it does NT's. in a similar position. NT's also tend to direct their anger outwards while we tend to direct it inwards.

The problem is our country has a awful mix of bullying, inequality, and guns. Until we destroy all the guns, take inequality seriously, and start punishing bullying as a criminal misdemeanor, then we will have shootings. Bullying and being shut out of society causes people (NT's too) to lose their mind, and guns are too easy to get.

The autism rate in South Korea is twice what it is in the U.S., and I've never heard of a school shooting there.


Yes, finally, someone has mentioned the easy availability of guns. What the people who claim that 'guns don't kill people, people do' fail to realise is that it is far easier for a killer with a gun to kill, than it is for a killer without one. A killer who has just his bare hands or a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

21 Feb 2013, 3:32 am

Lintar wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
Autistic people commit crimes at far lower rates than the general population. That includes Aspergers. Most of us have less desire for human companionship, so being shut out doesn't hurt as much as it does NT's. in a similar position. NT's also tend to direct their anger outwards while we tend to direct it inwards.

The problem is our country has a awful mix of bullying, inequality, and guns. Until we destroy all the guns, take inequality seriously, and start punishing bullying as a criminal misdemeanor, then we will have shootings. Bullying and being shut out of society causes people (NT's too) to lose their mind, and guns are too easy to get.

The autism rate in South Korea is twice what it is in the U.S., and I've never heard of a school shooting there.


Yes, finally, someone has mentioned the easy availability of guns. What the people who claim that 'guns don't kill people, people do' fail to realise is that it is far easier for a killer with a gun to kill, than it is for a killer without one. A killer who has just his bare hands or a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.

In South Korea, it's socially acceptable to throw molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. Overall, private gun ownership has worked out well. The problem has been attempts to use preventive measures to legislate away people doing bad things, and being very soft on violent crime. Our prison system is broken because so many violent criminals are allowed to live. They suffer from an acute lead deficiency and people need to be able to fix that when it manifests in front of them!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

21 Feb 2013, 3:42 am

Lintar wrote:
... a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.


Not really. A person could massacre a couple of classrooms of kids and a few teachers with a hunting knife. You just need to be determined and know how to inflict lethal wounds. On a whole, it'd be harder to rush a determined knife wielder than one with a firearm; you'll always take casualties when rushing a firearm user, but if there's more than a couple doing such in close quarters (which these things tend to be), then the firearm wielder would be easier to rush. You can't really rush a knife wielder unarmed (improvised weapons are fairly useless here); even a handful of people won't be able to (they can, but they'll readily experience fatal wounds at arm distance; within that distance and a firearm user is disarmed by a handful of people). Knifes never get the respect they deserve.

I'm assuming the firearm and knife wielders are equally skilled and determined.



WrongMultiverse
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 22

21 Feb 2013, 5:07 am

Fox News

"Report says school shooter Lanza had controversial sensory condition, Asperger's"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/21/sa ... -asperger/

Not good...


_________________
--WrongMultiverse
EQSQT: 33, 70 (Extreme Systemizing)
BAPT: 110, 105, 95 (Autistic/BAP)
AQT: 32/50 ("clinically significant levels of autistic traits",
Baron-Cohen et al)
AQ: aspie 115/200, NT 89/200 (Aspie and NT traits)


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

21 Feb 2013, 5:30 am

Dillogic wrote:
Lintar wrote:
... a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.


Not really. A person could massacre a couple of classrooms of kids and a few teachers with a hunting knife. You just need to be determined and know how to inflict lethal wounds. On a whole, it'd be harder to rush a determined knife wielder than one with a firearm; you'll always take casualties when rushing a firearm user, but if there's more than a couple doing such in close quarters (which these things tend to be), then the firearm wielder would be easier to rush. You can't really rush a knife wielder unarmed (improvised weapons are fairly useless here); even a handful of people won't be able to (they can, but they'll readily experience fatal wounds at arm distance; within that distance and a firearm user is disarmed by a handful of people). Knifes never get the respect they deserve.

I'm assuming the firearm and knife wielders are equally skilled and determined.


Well, that really depends on the kind of firearm really. If it is an AK-47 or M-16 then by the time you have disarmed the offender he will have caused quite a large number of deaths. An old shotgun, or any gun that can fire only one round at a time, will not be anywhere near as lethal. Then of course there is the situation itself, and whether or not there is anyone nearby who can physically overpower the shooter. Someone with a knife may or may not know 'how to inflict lethal wounds', but if the past is any guide to go by most of those who go on a rampage (with a gun that is) are not the most intelligent, just the most deranged.

Who knows, you could be right, but if guns are freely and abundantly available, then the killer wont select a knife instead; that's just not going to happen.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

21 Feb 2013, 5:40 am

John_Browning wrote:
In South Korea, it's socially acceptable to throw molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. Overall, private gun ownership has worked out well. The problem has been attempts to use preventive measures to legislate away people doing bad things, and being very soft on violent crime. Our prison system is broken because so many violent criminals are allowed to live. They suffer from an acute lead deficiency and people need to be able to fix that when it manifests in front of them!


I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is it a joke? Let me get this straight. You justify gun ownership by pointing to the South Koreans who have a more lethal, and 'socially acceptable', weapon at hand - Molotov Cocktails! - and this fact therefore justifies the possession of guns by others.
Preventative measures to reduce crime (like having police patrol the streets, perhaps?) have obviously not worked, so the solution is to just wait for someone to commit a felony - we can't prevent them after all - and then execute them!
Criminals suffer from 'acute lead deficiency' - how simple and convenient! The only problem is that lead is poisonous in large enough quantities, so I don't think that we should be giving anyone large doses of lead. Perhaps you meant iron?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Feb 2013, 1:35 am

John_Browning wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Tyri0n wrote:
Autistic people commit crimes at far lower rates than the general population. That includes Aspergers. Most of us have less desire for human companionship, so being shut out doesn't hurt as much as it does NT's. in a similar position. NT's also tend to direct their anger outwards while we tend to direct it inwards.

The problem is our country has a awful mix of bullying, inequality, and guns. Until we destroy all the guns, take inequality seriously, and start punishing bullying as a criminal misdemeanor, then we will have shootings. Bullying and being shut out of society causes people (NT's too) to lose their mind, and guns are too easy to get.

The autism rate in South Korea is twice what it is in the U.S., and I've never heard of a school shooting there.


Yes, finally, someone has mentioned the easy availability of guns. What the people who claim that 'guns don't kill people, people do' fail to realise is that it is far easier for a killer with a gun to kill, than it is for a killer without one. A killer who has just his bare hands or a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.

In South Korea, it's socially acceptable to throw molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. Overall, private gun ownership has worked out well. The problem has been attempts to use preventive measures to legislate away people doing bad things, and being very soft on violent crime. Our prison system is broken because so many violent criminals are allowed to live. They suffer from an acute lead deficiency and people need to be able to fix that when it manifests in front of them!


This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. Being "tougher on crime" isn't going to stop suicidal rampage killers. These people almost always save the last bullet for themselves or plan on a "death by cop" ending. The Aurora shooter only surrendered rather than offing himself because his gun jammed.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Feb 2013, 2:14 am

Dillogic wrote:
Lintar wrote:
... a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.


Not really. A person could massacre a couple of classrooms of kids and a few teachers with a hunting knife. You just need to be determined and know how to inflict lethal wounds. On a whole, it'd be harder to rush a determined knife wielder than one with a firearm; you'll always take casualties when rushing a firearm user, but if there's more than a couple doing such in close quarters (which these things tend to be), then the firearm wielder would be easier to rush. You can't really rush a knife wielder unarmed (improvised weapons are fairly useless here); even a handful of people won't be able to (they can, but they'll readily experience fatal wounds at arm distance; within that distance and a firearm user is disarmed by a handful of people). Knifes never get the respect they deserve.

I'm assuming the firearm and knife wielders are equally skilled and determined.


I think you're stretching it here. There's no way I'd ever try take on a knife wielder hand-to-hand, but I'd probably consider throwing whatever is available at the assailant, chairs, tables, books, etc... mainly to distract the person and give myself and others a chance to get away. If the assailant had a gun I'd be in immediate danger at any distance within sight. The only situation where I'd have a better chance with the gun wielder is if I happened to be immediately next to the assailant when the weapon was drawn and the barrel wasn't initially pointed at me.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Feb 2013, 3:04 am

marshall wrote:
I think you're stretching it here. There's no way I'd ever try take on a knife wielder hand-to-hand, but I'd probably consider throwing whatever is available at the assailant, chairs, tables, books, etc... mainly to distract the person and give myself and others a chance to get away. If the assailant had a gun I'd be in immediate danger at any distance within sight. The only situation where I'd have a better chance with the gun wielder is if I happened to be immediately next to the assailant when the weapon was drawn and the barrel wasn't initially pointed at me.


But to protect the children you'd need to assault the wielder -- there wouldn't be enough teachers in place to do that.

It's hard to hit a moving target with a firearm (moving across your line of sight). Plus you only need to break line of sight to become relatively immune to such (corridors and the insides of buildings offer ample cover -- the one problem is if the shooter is smart about it, such as what Cho did; he stood at the doorway and shot from there into the lecture halls -- the people that survived in the halls hid behind overturned desks -- whilst he could shoot through them easily enough, getting lethal hits on people here is guesswork). But yes, within the effective range of the firearm, you're in danger, and that effective range is greater than a melee weapon. The Whitman massacre is a perfect example of that.

My main point is though that they're two weapons that can be utilized to inflict many fatalities and casualties, and neither is "better" than the other based on far too many variables involved. Evidence enough would be the many massacres that have involved melee weapons only -- there's been several with similar levels of killed as the one this thread is about.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Feb 2013, 3:27 am

marshall wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Lintar wrote:
... a knife can be far more easily overpowered than a shooter.


Not really. A person could massacre a couple of classrooms of kids and a few teachers with a hunting knife. You just need to be determined and know how to inflict lethal wounds. On a whole, it'd be harder to rush a determined knife wielder than one with a firearm; you'll always take casualties when rushing a firearm user, but if there's more than a couple doing such in close quarters (which these things tend to be), then the firearm wielder would be easier to rush. You can't really rush a knife wielder unarmed (improvised weapons are fairly useless here); even a handful of people won't be able to (they can, but they'll readily experience fatal wounds at arm distance; within that distance and a firearm user is disarmed by a handful of people). Knifes never get the respect they deserve.

I'm assuming the firearm and knife wielders are equally skilled and determined.


I think you're stretching it here. There's no way I'd ever try take on a knife wielder hand-to-hand, but I'd probably consider throwing whatever is available at the assailant, chairs, tables, books, etc... mainly to distract the person and give myself and others a chance to get away. If the assailant had a gun I'd be in immediate danger at any distance within sight. The only situation where I'd have a better chance with the gun wielder is if I happened to be immediately next to the assailant when the weapon was drawn and the barrel wasn't initially pointed at me.


Yes, you are precisely right, and this is the point that I was trying to make. A man with a knife would be difficult to disarm hand-to-hand, but even so you could still distract them, throw objects at them, and generally do other things to unnerve them. That would obviously not work with someone who had a gun; he would just pull the trigger, and you would be dead. Then he would pull the trigger again, killing someone else nearby. Why can't the pro-gun advocates see this, or do they willingly choose not to?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

22 Feb 2013, 3:55 am

Lintar wrote:
Well, that really depends on the kind of firearm really. If it is an AK-47 or M-16 then by the time you have disarmed the offender he will have caused quite a large number of deaths. An old shotgun, or any gun that can fire only one round at a time, will not be anywhere near as lethal. Then of course there is the situation itself, and whether or not there is anyone nearby who can physically overpower the shooter. Someone with a knife may or may not know 'how to inflict lethal wounds', but if the past is any guide to go by most of those who go on a rampage (with a gun that is) are not the most intelligent, just the most deranged.

Who knows, you could be right, but if guns are freely and abundantly available, then the killer wont select a knife instead; that's just not going to happen.

The AK-47s on the civilian market do fire one round at a time, and A real M-16 is almost never available. You have been watching too many movies and too much news. Even the military doesn't normally use the full auto setting (that most of their guns have). The parts that make the difference between semi-auto and full auto are different and requires considerable metalworking skills to convert.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

22 Feb 2013, 4:05 am

Lintar wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
In South Korea, it's socially acceptable to throw molotov cocktails and rocks at the police. Overall, private gun ownership has worked out well. The problem has been attempts to use preventive measures to legislate away people doing bad things, and being very soft on violent crime. Our prison system is broken because so many violent criminals are allowed to live. They suffer from an acute lead deficiency and people need to be able to fix that when it manifests in front of them!


I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Is it a joke? Let me get this straight. You justify gun ownership by pointing to the South Koreans who have a more lethal, and 'socially acceptable', weapon at hand - Molotov Cocktails! - and this fact therefore justifies the possession of guns by others.
Preventative measures to reduce crime (like having police patrol the streets, perhaps?) have obviously not worked, so the solution is to just wait for someone to commit a felony - we can't prevent them after all - and then execute them!
Criminals suffer from 'acute lead deficiency' - how simple and convenient! The only problem is that lead is poisonous in large enough quantities, so I don't think that we should be giving anyone large doses of lead. Perhaps you meant iron?
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

No I meant lead, as in criminals need more bullet holes. It's the only reliable cure! Don't wait for someone to commit a felony, the victims should be able to shoot them on the spot! It's proven to reduce crime by far more than the number of people shot in self-defense!


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Feb 2013, 8:27 am

John_Browning wrote:
No I meant lead, as in criminals need more bullet holes. It's the only reliable cure! Don't wait for someone to commit a felony, the victims should be able to shoot them on the spot! It's proven to reduce crime by far more than the number of people shot in self-defense!


Ohhh.... Yes, now I get it! Lead, bullets.

'Don't wait for someone to commit a felony...' So let's just all start shooting at each other, like in the 'Wild West' (in the movies, perhaps not as it really was). Would you really want it to be this way; no, wait, you don't need to answer, I already know that you would. (sigh)



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

22 Feb 2013, 8:31 am

John_Browning wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Well, that really depends on the kind of firearm really. If it is an AK-47 or M-16 then by the time you have disarmed the offender he will have caused quite a large number of deaths. An old shotgun, or any gun that can fire only one round at a time, will not be anywhere near as lethal. Then of course there is the situation itself, and whether or not there is anyone nearby who can physically overpower the shooter. Someone with a knife may or may not know 'how to inflict lethal wounds', but if the past is any guide to go by most of those who go on a rampage (with a gun that is) are not the most intelligent, just the most deranged.

Who knows, you could be right, but if guns are freely and abundantly available, then the killer wont select a knife instead; that's just not going to happen.

The AK-47s on the civilian market do fire one round at a time, and A real M-16 is almost never available. You have been watching too many movies and too much news. Even the military doesn't normally use the full auto setting (that most of their guns have). The parts that make the difference between semi-auto and full auto are different and requires considerable metalworking skills to convert.


Okay, I'll stop watching movies. The news is always depressing, so I'll give that up too. I suppose my lack of knowledge about guns stems from the fact that I can't think of any good reason to own one, and I can't stand them.