[USMM guy]

The Russkies were famous for blaming everything on "mental illness" - that dog don't hunt.


It is, (of course) - and whee! AND, they get to define "act strange", too.

The Ruskies blamed everything on mental illness as an excuse to lock people up. Regardless of how they behaved. So that statement really has no relevance to this.

 

[USMM guy]

I disagree P-man. I think that what you describe here clearly qualifies as a person that has what I would describe in the vernacular sense as a few loose screws. In other words, they are either sociopaths or psychopaths. That is medically defined mentally ill people.

"Okay... you guys deserve my explanation. I watched much of the Parkland Shooter trial, and I don't believe for a minute that miscreant was mentally ill. He was a violent, pathetic, anti-social person. A misfit... but there wasn't a shred of evidence that he was truly mentally ill in the sense that his brain had some sort of imbalance of neurotransmitters, or physically damaged cortex"

 

[USMM guy]

Many of the Parkland School Shooting parents, during their victim impact statement referred to the shooter as an "animal", which I thought was the most appropriate term, because its so true. The difference between most animals and civilized people is that we are governed by laws, culture, respect for life, religion, fear of god, karma, or whatever. Whereas many wild animals have no sense of right and wrong, often governed by raw hard-wired genetic instincts.

So I would take it to mean that the people that you describe are what most of us would consider as suffering from mental illness. Pretty plain to see. If you act like a human being that is one thing. If you act like an animal. This being inconsistent with what most people would consider as being a person with a rational mind. That is consistent with the human behavior that separates us from animals. I would submit that animal behavior from someone that we might normally view as human. That this behavior would clearly indicate mental illness.

 

[USMM guy]

First of all I am sure there are many exceptions. There are many animals that don't kill period. Many of the grazing animals on the African savannah don't kill their own members and if there is aggressions, its generally males like wildebeest fighting over male supremacy to win the right to a female. Although I have seen films where some of the larger antelopes and wildebeests have killed by trampling hyenas and smaller carnivores trying to get one of their calves.

Okay so now the point I make is that in nature, aggression is part of the Darwinian code for survival of the fittest. In fact, aggression is very much a trait that is inherited via DNA and passed on to the next generation. What it does is it insures that the winner of a life and death struggle will live to pass on that specific aggressive trait to the next generation. There are many facets to it. In early humans for example, among hunter gathers, it could mean life or death of a clan, especially if food resources were scares. So killing the neighboring clan in cold blood murder meant more food for your clan and your progeny. We have an aggression trait that made homicide a favorable trait for early humans and well into modern times. When we developed agriculture and settled down, and civilization rose around agricultural basins... that murderous trait became a problem. But some of these psychologists are now recognizing is that it isn't some sort of mental defect... rather its some inherited behavior that lurks within us, and has always been with us and was at some point in our past beneficial to our survival.

Now as far as killing for the joy of it... well there are lots of exceptions there too. I have seen a video of a pod of Orca killer whales playing with a seal. They tossed it back and forth like a badminton shuttlecock. I have also seen videos of lion cubs toying with a small tiny antelope calf... literally biting it and tormenting that thing, but they had already eaten because their mother killed the mother of the antelope; which brings me to my favorite cat. My Himalayan cat I bought in 1982... a beautiful Blue point Himalayan long hair. Anyhow, she was the sweetest thing around humans, she would rub against your legs, demand to have her neck scratch, and every morning she would jump into my bed and sit on my chest and purr like a well tuned sports car until I got up and fed her. I never own a sweeter animal for a pet. But my God, she was the most wicked, mean, merciless huntress that would kill for the joy of it. I over fed that cat so she never needed to kill to eat, she was also finicky eater, but if she ever saw a small animal, a lizard, or a mouse, she would catch it and toy with it until it was dead. Never ate anything she caught. The first time was in Florida when she caught a series of lizards. We have these small brown anoles all over the place in Florida. She would catch one and gnaw off the legs and feet alive. Then other times she was really good at just playing with it. First time I realized how dexterous house cats were with their claws. She caught one and she would wear it out. She would allow it to escape, and then swipe at it and with one claw extended like an index finger, she nailed the lizard and dragged it back. She would do that over and over again tormenting that lizard. One time she caught a mouse, and played soccer with it. I though she was playing with a sock ball out of my laundry basket. But no it was a mouse that she tortured to death and then dropped it by my feet.

Well sure you can make a case that killing as a means to an end does not necessarily indicate mental illness. We do after all fight wars. But that is not what I am referring to. I am referring to wanton killing with no real gain in sight but rather the end of one's life as the end result.
This might in some respect mirror the animal behavior that you refer to, killing for amusement. But if so then I would submit that it is something of a regression in human development, a return to a much more primitive state. A state as much like an animal. And this in and of itself would indicate a manifestation of mental illness.

 

[USMM guy]

I think the Brady group is framing their argument in their best light. It does seem to ignore the fact that a great majority of these shooters seem to have some mental illness but just not the plus this and plus that required by statute/insanity defense.

This I can buy, which I think supports what I have been saying from post #1.

 

[USMM guy]

Thought all "brady bunch nut jobs" are medical, legal, and firearm professionals who know all, see all, never make mistakes, and are the only people whose opinions matter on firearms related issues?

That is their story, and they are sticking to it.