What a horrific crime. My thoughts go out to the victims and their families.

Charleston church shooting: 9 deaths reported - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/us/charleston-south-carolina-shooting/index.html)

Prayers for the victims & their families.

I hope this brings races together, instead of apart. Which I'm sure was the intention of the shooter.

Another day...another shooting. Welcome to the USA.

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

You'd think we'd take steps to try and remedy this. Yet no attempt is ever made. I imagine folks in Washington are afraid they won't get reelected if they did something on this issue.

You'd think we'd take steps to try and remedy this. Yet no attempt is ever made. I imagine folks in Washington are afraid they won't get reelected if they did something on this issue.

There were steps taken to remedy this going back decades but unfortunately they were incorrect.

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

To be fair, we've centralized the government in an area 80% the size of Europe with 43% the amount of people. Anybody that's surprised that we have some major anomalies compared to a country like Poland, which is the size of New Mexico, with more people than California, and a GDP that would be among the Top 10 states in the US, all operating under one government, should not be surprised that they have a better handle on not letting these things slip through the cracks.

It's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed for Wyoming 1600 miles away in D.C.

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

I have no clue what this means. Can you clarify?

It seems that special interest politics seems a far larger impediment to addressing these issues than government inefficiency... whatever you mean by that.

Love what the president said. No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency.

We don't take care of our mentally ill and too many people like the gunman have easy access to guns.

I totally agree. But, is there evidence this guy was mentally ill? Honestly asking. Because we also need to address systemic and deep-seated racism, which was this guy's stated motivation. Just calling him mentally ill can avoid the other important conversation.

There were steps taken to remedy this going back decades but unfortunately they were incorrect.

Which steps were those?

I totally agree. But, is there evidence this guy was mentally ill? Honestly asking. Because we also need to address systemic and deep-seated racism, which was this guy's stated motivation. Just calling him mentally ill can avoid the other important conversation.

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

But I agree his main motivation was obviously racism.

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?

So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?

This was an act of terrorism, plain and simple.

I have no clue what this means. Can you clarify?

It seems that special interest politics seems a far larger impediment to addressing these issues than government inefficiency... whatever you mean by that.

Special Interest politics is part and parcel to this level of centralized government. The average citizen would be lucky to get a token lunch or meeting with her US Representative once every few years. Forget your senators altogether. The citizens are left to align themselves with things they're most passionate about: Guns, Gay Rights, God, and Government Handouts (of the corporate and individual variety) plus a whole host of other interests, and then support those powerful entities lobbying for those interests. There is no legitimate representation of 320 million people in Washington DC. The Federal government of Poland has more elected federal officials than the United States of America with about 10% of the people.

To be fair, we've centralized the government in an area 80% the size of Europe with 43% the amount of people. Anybody that's surprised that we have some major anomalies compared to a country like Poland, which is the size of New Mexico, with more people than California, and a GDP that would be among the Top 10 states in the US, all operating under one government, should not be surprised that they have a better handle on not letting these things slip through the cracks.

It's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed for Wyoming 1600 miles away in D.C.

Yes there could be more gun-control. Yes we could take better care of the mentally ill. None of that addresses the reason this is happening 15 years after Columbine: The federal government is so big and inefficient that it can't efficiently keep up with the progress of society.

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

Never mind, you explained it.

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

With the HOR only working on the average 137 days a year it is no wonder it's hard to get anything done.

How would that compare to Canada? More land area, fewer % of people but the number of mass killings there do not extrapolate to the ratio of land mass to people.

Seriously? Most of Canada is uninhabitable, nearly the entire population is concentrated in 2 regions of the country.

My point at large, dan, is that we don't have time except to give a perfunctory nod to the fact that we have problems in this country. Tomorrow congress will be dealing with giving some money to a few states to do some park projects, the next day they'll be legislating some bills about gun control, the following day some talk about health care and then over the next week the government is going to be at work on interstate commerce laws. Obviously that's a caricature, but the point is there is no way to streamline the needs of 320 million people simultaneously. There just isn't. Not now, not ever. Do we seriously expect to effectively address this mass level violence when we're worried about anywhere between 50 and 100 other major issues that "The United States of America" is trying to solve?

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

Both of my grandfathers were deep-seated racists, but they would never kill another human being. You have to be a little crazy to kill 9 people cold-blooded.

But I agree his main motivation was obviously racism.




So, every mass killing should be explained by mental illness?


I think there's a difference between being a little crazy and mentally ill.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

I'm not ready to concede our democracy yet, either. Indeed I'd prefer to see a more representative democracy by flipping the resources and importance of our State governments with our Federal government, because individuals have far more voice in their own states than they do at the federal level.

And nobody is asking anyone to accept mass killings, systemic racism and a whole host of other awful things that happen in this country. But a machine as massive as the US government being nimble and nuanced enough to be efficacious is a pretty tall order. I think it would be a lot easier for several individual state governments to put together some solutions to these problems: see what works and what doesn't, and then move forward.

If a Federal initiative fails, it usually fails spectacularly…and I think we can see that more than a few of our attempts at mitigating a large variety of issues are proving to be spectacular failures. People keep blaming the "other" party, but never look at the fact that the system is probably what has us in the most trouble.

As sad as this story is, we shouldn't be making this maniac a celebrity by posting his photo all over the news and showing his name...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

I'm not ready to concede our democracy yet, either. Indeed I'd prefer to see a more representative democracy by flipping the resources and importance of our State governments with our Federal government, because individuals have far more voice in their own states than they do at the federal level.

And nobody is asking anyone to accept mass killings, systemic racism and a whole host of other awful things that happen in this country. But a machine as massive as the US government being nimble and nuanced enough to be efficacious is a pretty tall order. I think it would be a lot easier for several individual state governments to put together some solutions to these problems: see what works and what doesn't, and then move forward.

If a Federal initiative fails, it usually fails spectacularly…and I think we can see that more than a few of our attempts at mitigating a large variety of issues are proving to be spectacular failures. People keep blaming the "other" party, but never look at the fact that the system is probably what has us in the most trouble.

I don't want to hijack this thread further so I'll make one last comment and you can have the last word if you so choose. First, the federal/state dichotomy oversimplifies how federalism does and can work where most issues actually derive influence from both levels. Secondly, being around Oklahoma's state legislature, do you really trust states much more? There's also the new phenomenon of conservative, small government state politicians stripping the rights of local communities to make decisions. The binary thinking and that comes from the two-party system, which many Founders warned against, seems a bigger problem to me. We need more, and real, choices in our democracy. The two parties often fail to provide meaningful choices about actionable issues.

I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing ways that government can curb special interests and better represent citizens. Stronger campaign finance reform laws and spending limits might mean that legislators would quit ignoring the will of the people, often overwhelmingly, on issues where there is more public consensus. And there are issues where 90% of the public agrees, but special interests win. There are many other short and long term (e.g., multiparty system) solutions that I won't go into detail mentioning.

I guess I'm not ready to concede our democracy just yet, or at least my active role as a citizen. And I'm personally not willing to just accept mass killings or systemic racism or environmental degradation or whatever without trying to do something...

Unfortunately the current makeup of SCOTUS equates campaign reform with assaults on free speech. Until a constitutional amendment is passed(roflmao) this logic will stand and hinder any attempt at spending limits or other reforms that limit influence through monetary rewards. SCOTUS is enabling the current system to lurch along.

Was he on any psychiatric drugs? This is a horrible crime that just is hard to fathom. Senseless deaths.

If this was a black guy who killed 9 white people mental illness would have not even been brought up in this thread.

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately. This guy has already lived too long after his crime.

I'm not against treatment for mental illness. In fact I think way more should be done before the fact to help these people, but once they cross the line what is done is done & they should face normal repercussions as anybody else would.

If this was a black guy who killed 9 white people mental illness would have not even been brought up in this thread.

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately. This guy has already lived too long after his crime.

I'm not against treatment for mental illness. In fact I think way more should be done before the fact to help these people, but once they cross the line what is done is done & they should face normal repercussions as anybody else would.

So if someone has a seizure while driving and they plow into a crowd of people, killing 9, should that person be put to sleep as well?

I don't want to hijack this thread further so I'll make one last comment and you can have the last word if you so choose. First, the federal/state dichotomy oversimplifies how federalism does and can work where most issues actually derive influence from both levels. Secondly, being around Oklahoma's state legislature, do you really trust states much more? There's also the new phenomenon of conservative, small government state politicians stripping the rights of local communities to make decisions. The binary thinking and that comes from the two-party system, which many Founders warned against, seems a bigger problem to me. We need more, and real, choices in our democracy. The two parties often fail to provide meaningful choices about actionable issues.

I doubt as though we actually disagree about much. I think we need all those things.

And going back to the post that originally started this whole line of discussion:
"No other civilized or advanced country in the world has massacres like this, happening at such a high frequency."

I think we can defend ourselves a little and say that it's a bit of disingenuous argument considering that there only 12 countries in the world with >100,000,000 people and only 5 >200,000,000. Norway had a 77 person mass murder this decade. Germany, U.K., France, Finland have all had these types of mass shootings. How many states have had more than 1, how many have had none?

The point overall is that the US is not really comparable to just about every other country in the world and we face unique challenges that make it hard for our federal government to do anything about the issue.

So if someone has a seizure while driving and they plow into a crowd of people, killing 9, should that person be put to sleep as well?

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

If this was a black guy who killed 9 white people mental illness would have not even been brought up in this thread.

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately. This guy has already lived too long after his crime.

I'm not against treatment for mental illness. In fact I think way more should be done before the fact to help these people, but once they cross the line what is done is done & they should face normal repercussions as anybody else would.

This.

Really shocking to me that some people in society cannot admit certain truths that may challenge their worldview. This guy is a violent bigot, pure and simple. He deserves due process, but this much has been established.

Sadly, I have quite a bit of mental illness and addiction issues in my extended family. Yet I cannot remember one of them shooting up a church.

What does that have to do with anything I just said?

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately.

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately.

How does a person who has a seizure on a car make a decision to kill somebody? Please, just stop.

How does a person who has a seizure on a car make a decision to kill somebody? Please, just stop.

The point is that if someone is mentally ill there is a distinct possibility that they aren't rational so what is your justification for executing a person who committed an act that was a result of thinking that is not connected to reality?

The point is that if someone is mentally ill there is a distinct possibility that they aren't rational so what is your justification for executing a person who committed an act that was a result of thinking that is not connected to reality?

In what way is murder ever rational? In what way is a murderer connected to reality?

I doubt as though we actually disagree about much. I think we need all those things.

And going back to the post that originally started this whole line of discussion:

I think we can defend ourselves a little and say that it's a bit of disingenuous argument considering that there only 12 countries in the world with >100,000,000 people and only 5 >200,000,000. Norway had a 77 person mass murder this decade. Germany, U.K., France, Finland have all had these types of mass shootings. How many states have had more than 1, how many have had none?

The point overall is that the US is not really comparable to just about every other country in the world and we face unique challenges that make it hard for our federal government to do anything about the issue.

The point about population to number of killings is indeed a good one, but when looking at per capita statistics, the USA is still way outside the bounds.

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/)
The United States has by far the highest per capita rate of all developed countries. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the United States has four times as many gun-related homicides per capita as do Turkey and Switzerland, which are tied for third. The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.

In what way is murder ever rational? In what way is a murderer connected to reality?

Do you see a difference between a guy that murders a store clerk while committing a robbery, or a jealous spouse who murders the other spouse for infidelity, and the guy who murders people because the voices in his head tell him to?

Do you see a difference between a guy that murders a store clerk while committing a robbery, or a jealous spouse who murders the other spouse for infidelity, and the guy who murders people because the voices in his head tell him to?

Different circumstances & motives, same results. None of those people are fit to ever function with society, and should never be given a 2nd chance & every person who makes that decision to take a life should have theirs taken.

If this was a black guy who killed 9 white people mental illness would have not even been brought up in this thread.

I don't care if somebody is "mentally ill" or not, once they make a decision to kill anybody else they are beyond repair & can't function in society & should be put to sleep immediately. This guy has already lived too long after his crime.

I'm not against treatment for mental illness. In fact I think way more should be done before the fact to help these people, but once they cross the line what is done is done & they should face normal repercussions as anybody else would.

Do we know that? As far as I can recall, there haven't been many instances of these types of mass shootings occurring at the hands of a black person. I think mental illness gets brought up because it's one thing to kill one or two people with whom you're very closely associated or with whom you have a major issue. It's quite another thing to indiscriminately take lives of as many people as you can.

Bigotry is obviously a major component of this, but mental illness clearly is as well.

And just as adaniel has quite a bit of mental illness and addiction issues in his family that does not lead to mass killings, I think we all know a fair amount of bigoted people who don't go on killing sprees.

It's a wide variety of issues at play here.

Coming back to the thread, even with the mentally ill, cultural paranoia or bigotry can play a huge factor in the direction mental illness takes. During the height of the Cold War I am sure that paranoid schizophrenia manifested itself in Cold War narratives. I have no large-scale evidence to back this up so correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of quite a few examples along these lines. So even if this kid has a mental illness, there is a good chance that he was exposed to, or surrounded with, racism that caused him to turn in this direction. His identification with white-supremacist colonial powers and planning the killing near the anniversary of Denmark Vesey's failed slave revolt indicates that he's studied his history.

Having said that, if this was a black kid then we would have heard half the country uttering "thug" and decrying the black family structure. Instead, with a white kid who literally announced that he was there to kill people because of their skin color, everyone's first go-to seems to be mental illness. I have heard few use the term ""terrorism," which this incident qualifies. There is no condemnation of racism within white communities as there is always criticism of black communities. The narrative of any issues pertaining to race in this country seems to be totally skewed towards blaming black males as representatives of systemic problems and white males as individuals and aberrations. Am I wrong?

Do you see a difference between a guy that murders a store clerk while committing a robbery, or a jealous spouse who murders the other spouse for infidelity, and the guy who murders people because the voices in his head tell him to?

But I do see your point, every case is different. In some situations, some people have absolutely no control over their actions. Those people are usually easy to spot before a situation gets this out of hand, and those people should be under almost 24/7 surveillance and probably shouldn't be allowed in society anyway.

Besides all that, focused on this ONE case. This guy is NOT "mentally ill" & he should had already had his dick blown off, and then his head.

Do we know that? As far as I can recall, there haven't been many instances of these types of mass shootings occurring at the hands of a black person. I think mental illness gets brought up because it's one thing to kill one or two people with whom you're very closely associated or with whom you have a major issue. It's quite another thing to indiscriminately take lives of as many people as you can.

Bigotry is obviously a major component of this, but mental illness clearly is as well.

And just as adaniel has quite a bit of mental illness and addiction issues in his family that does not lead to mass killings, I think we all know a fair amount of bigoted people who don't go on killing sprees.

It's a wide variety of issues at play here.

Were all white people who mass killed black people a century ago mentally ill? All the people who participated in the Tulsa race riots were just off their rocker? Give me a break. This guy is a bigot with a clear motive to kill black people. A murderer.

Do we know that? As far as I can recall, there haven't been many instances of these types of mass shootings occurring at the hands of a black person. I think mental illness gets brought up because it's one thing to kill one or two people with whom you're very closely associated or with whom you have a major issue. It's quite another thing to indiscriminately take lives of as many people as you can.

Bigotry is obviously a major component of this, but mental illness clearly is as well.

And just as adaniel has quite a bit of mental illness and addiction issues in his family that does not lead to mass killings, I think we all know a fair amount of bigoted people who don't go on killing sprees.

It's a wide variety of issues at play here.

Were all white people who mass killed black people a century ago mentally ill? All the people who participated in the Tulsa race riots were just off their rocker? Give me a break. This guy is a bigot with a clear motive to kill black people. A murderer.

Was Osama Bin Laden just taking crazy pills? I guess we shouldn't have killed him either, because OBVIOUSLY if you conduct mass murder then mental illness is the #1 factor & we should focus on getting him treatment instead of removing him from the planet.

Were all white people who mass killed black people a century ago mentally ill? All the people who participated in the Tulsa race riots were just off their rocker? Give me a break. This guy is a bigot with a clear motive to kill black people. A murderer.

I'm assuming you actively chose to ignore the part where I said:


Bigotry is obviously a major component of this, but mental illness clearly is as well.

And, ummmmm…just how far apart are bigotry and mental illness away from each other anyway? I mean, really, especially when we're talking about bigotry of this scale?

Was Osama Bin Laden just taking crazy pills? I guess we shouldn't have killed him either, because OBVIOUSLY if you conduct mass murder then mental illness is the #1 factor & we should focus on getting him treatment instead of removing him from the planet.

This is about as silly as Jersey Boss' example about the person having a seizure and killing a family in a car accident.

Can we get examples that are a bit more germane to the discussion.

This is about as silly as Jersey Boss' example about the person having a seizure and killing a family in a car accident.

Can we get examples that are a bit more germane to the discussion.

It was an intentionally ridiculous statement to counter act the point that any mass murder must include mental illness.

But I do see your point, every case is different. In some situations, some people have absolutely no control over their actions. Those people are usually easy to spot before a situation gets this out of hand, and those people should be under almost 24/7 surveillance and probably shouldn't be allowed in society anyway.

Besides all that, focused on this ONE case. This guy is NOT "mentally ill" & he should had already had his dick blown off, and then his head.

Killing him now in vengeance won't bring anyone back, or keep anyone else alive. Shouldn't we wait to, you know, collect evidence before rushing to execute the person you think did it?

Coming back to the thread, even with the mentally ill, cultural paranoia or bigotry can play a huge factor in the direction mental illness takes. During the height of the Cold War I am sure that paranoid schizophrenia manifested itself in Cold War narratives. I have no large-scale evidence to back this up so correct me if I am wrong, but I can think of quite a few examples along these lines. So even if this kid has a mental illness, there is a good chance that he was exposed to, or surrounded with, racism that caused him to turn in this direction. His identification with white-supremacist colonial powers and planning the killing near the anniversary of Denmark Vesey's failed slave revolt indicates that he's studied his history.

Having said that, if this was a black kid then we would have heard half the country uttering "thug" and decrying the black family structure. Instead, with a white kid who literally announced that he was there to kill people because of their skin color, everyone's first go-to seems to be mental illness. I have heard few use the term ""terrorism," which this incident qualifies. There is no condemnation of racism within white communities as there is always criticism of black communities. The narrative of any issues pertaining to race in this country seems to be totally skewed towards blaming black males as representatives of systemic problems and white males as individuals and aberrations. Am I wrong?

It's too early for me to say on this guy. This just happened today. I haven't even read any articles about it yet -- just seen the headlines. I suspect we'll know more about it as time goes by. It seems clear that there is some combination of mental illness and extreme racism.

I have no problem calling a black gang member who shoots someone during the commission of a crime a "thug". I also have no problem calling a crazy white guy who shoots a bunch of people like this a "psycho". The race of the killer doesn't even matter.

It's too early for me to say on this guy. This just happened today. I haven't even read any articles about it yet -- just seen the headlines. I suspect we'll know more about it as time goes by. It seems clear that there is some combination of mental illness and extreme racism.

I have no problem calling a black gang member who shoots someone during the commission of a crime a "thug". I also have no problem calling a crazy white guy who shoots a bunch of people like this a "psycho". The race of the killer doesn't even matter.

I agree with this. After all, they've spent a lot of time in the James Holmes trial looking at his obvious psychiatric troubles. Just seems basic to consider mental illness when something of this magnitude happens. This guy in Charleston was clearly racist and had many issues. It's a fine line. I don't care what color a mass murderer is, you have to look at the suspect's mental state prior to such horrific actions. Including what mind altering psychiatric drugs were in their system. It's no excuse, but many times it IS part of the explanation.

It was an intentionally ridiculous statement to counter act the point that any mass murder must include mental illness.

I don't think we can equate mass shootings to mass murder. When we say mass murder we're talking about obscene numbers of victims and whole groups of people with a large variety of interests doing something that is horrific on a scale completely different from someone shooting up a public space.

And furthermore, nobody in this thread has come remotely close to saying "These people with mental illnesses *who have already gone on a killing spree* should be coddled and instantly forgiven with no repercussions for their actions". And nobody in this thread is saying that this dude was trying to advance the plight of black people with these shootings. Everyone clearly knows bigotry was part of the equation. But for some reason we're trying to arbitrarily remove the mental illness out of the equation. To what end I'm not at all sure. Surely it's not because we want this to be the cross for the discussion of racism in the United States to die on.

Killing him now in vengeance won't bring anyone back, or keep anyone else alive. Shouldn't we wait to, you know, collect evidence before rushing to execute the person you think did it?

Yeah, but killing him could prevent future people from deciding to mass murder innocents and then claim insanity later on knowing they could get away with it.

This is about as silly as Jersey Boss' example about the person having a seizure and killing a family in a car accident.

Can we get examples that are a bit more germane to the discussion.

Teo, you missed the fine point I was making. If it is shown that a person is mentally ill to the point of being delusional they should not be held to the same standard of accountability when passing punishment. That does not mean they should "walk", but it means they should not necessarily be put to death. I don't believe in a universal eye for an eye mentality, but basing a punishment based on more than the offense. Our criminal justice system does not mandate any one punishment only for murder.

Yeah, but killing him could prevent future people from deciding to mass murder innocents and then claim insanity later on knowing they could get away with it.

Have there been examples of these types of murderers claiming insanity and subsequently "getting away with it"?

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

Teo, you missed the fine point I was making. If it is shown that a person is mentally ill to the point of being delusional they should not be held to the same standard of accountability when passing punishment. That does not mean they should "walk", but it means they should not necessarily be put to death. I don't believe in a universal eye for an eye mentality, but basing a punishment based on more than the offense. Our criminal justice system does not mandate any one punishment only for murder.

I don't disagree with you, but you used an example of someone who had absolutely zero control over their body taking lives and compared it to someone who with at least some amount of will/intent went into a church and took the lives of 9 people.

It did not make the point you wanted it to make. The seizure example would be an extreme case of negligent manslaughter.

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

The next example you provide of a murderer on this scale "getting away with it because they are 'insane'" will be the first example you provide.

Its offensive to victims, the victims families & real mentally ill people who can actually keep their **** together when a murderer gets away with it because they were "insane".

I can appreciate the emotion of your statement. However, what science is learning about the brain leads to questions of "free will." I'm not saying this guy necessarily. He is obviously a mass murderer who should never be allowed to ever be in a situation to do this again. But to say that most people can keep their "&^%&" together doesn't equate to everyone can. The brain isn't wired that way. But again, we need to wait and hear what all was going on, but I truly do understand your emotional sentiment. I really do.

Ok, if there aren't any examples on this scale then why would anybody in this thread even bring up mental illness? If anybody who has ever committed a crime this large never been clinically proven insane, then why would we start making that assumption now?

You are making my point for me. Anybody that is capable of a mass murder of this proportion should not even have a chance of wiggling out of anything due to his/her mental state.

The Charles Whitman case (UT Tower shootings) is one that many point to because it's tangible. Meaning, there was an actual tumor in his brain (something physical as opposed to chemistry) that was effecting the part of the brain that suppresses rage and anger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

Charles Whitman: The Amygdala & Mass Murder
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. (http://brainmind.com/Case5.html)