Could science convince you that the shooter was not ethically responsible for his actions?

Brain trauma which can completely alter a person's personality and inhibitions.

It would take some convincing however as this doesn't seem to have been spur of the moment but carefully planned

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/kluver-bucy-syndrome/

Dude had brain surgery, had a lobe damaged and came out of it with a compulsion for child pornography.

Gets caught with it and the judge ends up splitting the sentence down the middle.

The autopsy showed he has a brain tumor. Maybe that destroyed his inner demon impulse control.

His attack was well planned out. He killed his wife and mother, who had separated from his very abusive father, saying he wanted to 'relieve her suffering'. Nobody can ever really know why but he also killed his wife. He left his father to deal with the situation.

He hired a hand cart to bring his recently purchased guns and ammunition to the tower. He dressed in fatigues.

He had sought psychological help, and told the psychiatrist about his fantasy of shooting people from the tower. The psychiatrist said they needed to talk further, but Whitman never made the appointment because he had already made up his mind.

About Whitman, but it is eerily similar.

On one hand it would ve closure explaining "why". OTH it would give an out to continue to do nothing as it was simply a one time abberration that ended with his death

And the penalty for getting caught possessing one should be harsh.

And as a disclaimer, I have VERY little knowledge about what constitutes what, when it comes to firearms. I've fired a gun just twice, in my life. Once while in basic training, and once as some sort of 'requirement', later in my enlistment. I was in the medical corps, so I seriously doubt I would ever even be near a firearm, while on duty.

during this. Yes, I believe that brain lesions can cause problems. The percentage of people in prison with brain lesions far outpaces the incidence in the nonincarcerated population. No, I don't remember where I read that.

And support research why it is so race related

white men and black men react differently to a certain brain condition. Women have brain tumors too, but they rarely shoot up public spaces. Again there may be other variables that make reactions to the same conditions different.

And about two years later died of a brain tumor. In my mind everything we do is caused by biological reasons that control the brain- not just tumors. Protecting society from dangerous people still matters.

Because free and easy access to guns, modifications and ammunition sure as shit does not seem to be making public events any "safer" from random idiots....our culture of not treating mental illness as a true disease and instead perpetuating the stereo-type of the "lone nut", the "crazed gunman", the "disturbed individual" in place of actual mental health care is at the heart of the whole problem.

I hate guns. Never owned one, never will. The idea of fetish-izing an instrument of mass death is profoundly disturbing to me. But I understand the minds of legitimate gun owners and responsible hunters and their rights...sadly, the NRA's zero tolerance policy of ANY kind of legislation to prevent ANY kind of gun ownership (shit, they won't even allow the individuals on the no-fly list to be prevented from owning guns...that should make anyone's blood run cold).

WE spend all of our money and attention and energy on the trivial and inconsequential because that is the way the owners want it...and its NEVER going to change without violent rebellion and overthrow of the monied interests ruining (no typo...there IS no one
'running' this country at the moment, our "driver" has his foot on the gas, his head out the window and is eating bugs as we careen out of control) this nation. Until they fear ALL of the people to the same degree that they fear black penises, we are ALL at risk of being disposed of by their actions and greed.

More money for mental health options is a small step in the right direction, but until and unless we change the zeitgeist of the age from capitalism and greed to sustainable living and shared prosperity, we will continue to get exactly what we have been getting for decades now...shared misery and grief.

Often the person doesn't want treatment or acknowledge the need for it. I cringe when I see families blamed when their options are so few. It really takes a village to support a person back to wellness or even stability.

But that is where real progress can be made...in the areas of de-stigmatizing mental health to at least the level of alcoholism for god's sake...we have thousands of citizens living among us right now that are profoundly unwell. They cannot or will not seek assistance and that is a huge part of the problem, but one that we can influence.

We need to ask the media to stop using terms like "lone nut", "disturbed gunman", "crazed killer", et. al. I have seen all of those terms tossed around on TV and radio in the last 48 hours (and in the aftermath of every large shooting forever). First step to solving a problem is recognizing when you're in a ditch the first step out to stop digging. That's tiny step one...

Tiny step two is to dehumanize the perpetrator and humanize the victims ONLY. No property analysis, no cost analysis, no worrying about the impact to the local tourism economy...only a continual wake service for those innocents gunned down and killed in cold blood for nothing more than being in the exact wrong spot at the exact wrong moment. That's tiny step two...there is no "why", and although people like to contemplate and reason to make the truly incomprehensible accessible, we cannot ever know why and the act of asking the question "why" invites more belittling of mental health...Adam Lanza's pictures come to mind here...or Dylan Roof's. We do not need to see these people, we need to diagnose the NEXT one before they can act out.

I don't really have answers well fleshed out...its just therapy for me to speculate on to avoid the grief of the overall hopelessness of getting meaningful change enacted in the face of so much carnage for so many years...

Care when things do not end well. The whole system is designed to make us all try to distance ourselves from the problem. And the results- all the homelessness, the families repair, the occasional horrible consequences are disconnected from our consciousness of the root problems.

White men start acting crazy they get "elected" President.

were to be included in this forensic examination.

Not sure what you are trying to say...

while leaving people of color guilty because, of course they acted this way because they are savages - rather than also potentially having their actions driven by a brain tumor or something similar.

My brother is a native american who raped and murdered two women. This was completely out of character for him, according to the most damaging witnesses the prosecution could find. The newspapers were filled with every racist stereotype they could dredge up to damn him - while everyone who knew him personally was searching for something that might explain this complete break with his character. I.e. most people just preferred to believe it was just in his nature as a person of color.

I was talking about if they took apart this specific shooter's brain and found whatever (tumor, stroke) etc...

Maybe you'll find something of interest in this podcast where they talk about what can cause such a break.

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-biology-of-good-and-evil

the personality changes they went through were startling and scary. And at the beginning they were subtle but potentially dangerous. I watched a sweet hearted person have violent mood swings and a pervasive paranoia.

The science behind CTE and concussions needs to be expanded beyond the NFL in order to be worthwhile.

There are far too many variables at play and we don't know enough about the situation to limit it to the NFL. That's bad science.

...I don't think we'll find that all the people who enabled him had brain tumors too. Sometimes evil is just evil.

There's not going to be a trial, and as far as any consequences from an afterlife, that's something we have no ability to perceive.

It's about blaming pro-gun people, especially sellers and manufacturers right now. Of course, even if not another weapon were ever sold anywhere in the world as of this moment forward, there are still enough of them out there to do a Las Vegas every day for the rest of the lives of everyone reading my words today.

The best thing we can do now is to eliminate the sniper perches. If I have to have my luggage screened to get on an aircraft, then maybe I should have it screened to get on a high floor of a hotel or office building. It's odd that we didn't learn this lesson in the 1960's after Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman, the Texas tower sniper.

Are you suggesting that we get rid of tall buildings?

No more than I would suggest getting rid of aircraft after 9/11. Mandatory screening of visitors, and hey, even employees of tall structures should be put in place. Especially high rise hotels.

How does one screen at a place like the Mandalay Bay that is built for guests, shoppers, gamblers, gawkers and everyone else...

What constitutes a tall structure? I can think of a dozen places around the US where one could create similar havoc from the 3rd floor up.

It's not realistic.

Then, we started seeing planes being hijacked to Cuba, and after 9/11, of course, we radically restructured who can get in and out of the last parts of an airport. That could have been called silly, too.

Why is it that people are OK with reasonable restrictions on air travel, and not on other forms of providing a sick or evil person with an easy means of mass murder? And as far as the third floor and up, hey, count that in, too. I would make the restrictions based on the number of floors that a place has, and not which one a guest's room is located.

One exception could be for newer hotels that could be required to have anti-terrorism glass that cannot be broken. Sure, makes it hard to escape a fire, but when it's on anything higher than the third floor, you're dead anyway.

Now, we will have copycat crimes, the assholes now know how to do it.

I'm sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I have read today.

Why stop at hotels? Why not office buildings, trees, bridges.....

to bring an arsenal into. After you got the fifth weapon up in a tree, somebody's going to notice.

Or hope it doesn't happen again, just like the NRA every time there's one of these shootings.

Let's not ban guns, let's ban buildings!

While I suppose we could hire TSA to protect the nations many buildings, I think it's going to be really really difficult to eliminate or secure the nations hill tops and valleys.

but most hills are not located in target-rich environments. Major hotels certainly are.

When you check into a hotel room, you have hours and hours of unsupervised time to do whatever nasty-ass thing you want in there, like assemble an arsenal. Ask any owner or manager of a cheap motel who has discovered a meth lab in the place.

Although the nasty-ass things I do there have nothing to do with building an arsenal

But the cheap motel people do try to keep an eye on people bringing in large bags of stuff from the drug store. And all I'm advocating is pre-9/11 type airport screening of luggage going to upper floor rooms.

I think that may be what the NRA and GOP are really after.

All the people who talk about mandatory photo ID voting being voter suppression don't seem to have the same qualms about the requirement to show ID in order to fly within one's own country.

Or, we could just keep doing what we've been doing, and hope it never happens again. That's what the NRA advocates on the possession of really dangerous weapons.

Then we'll have both freedumb and safety.

You got something in your luggage besides dirty underwear that you need to hide? And even that will go through a metal detector just fine.

Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks that the same techniques to keep weapons out of the high sky that the aircraft fly in would be pretty darned effective at keeping them off of high floors of public accommodations. Why is one form of inspection normal, rational and necessary, and the other constitutes a police state?

Or, we can pretend your screening would have prevented the shooting, without holding any absolute knowledge at all.

"Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks that the same techniques..."
I'm sure there are one or two others here who have not thought this through thoroughly or rationally either...

had to run his luggage through a metal detector, you don't think they would have found at least ONE dangerous weapon? He didn't use the transporter beam to get them from his vehicle to the room. No doubt that he made multiple trips, and even if he had done so on a back staircase in connection with a fire escape (there are ways of securing them, they do it at airports all around the country) security cameras in the staircase would have caught the same guy lugging up heavy bags multiple times.

Why do you think that screening luggage for high rise hotels would be any less effective than screening at airports, especially when it comes to semi-automatic weapons?

Than there are going onto airplanes. Can you even imagine the kind of infrastructure, and restrictions on movement that would be required to implement your idea of "freedumb with safety"?

To say nothing of the fact that people who live in high rise apartments would be effectively stripped of their constitutional liberties.

But by all means advocate for it if you think it's a good idea.

what harm would it cause to check anything bigger than a briefcase? Or, we could just hope it doesn't happen again because it would be too inconvenient to prevent.

We can certainly do this with high rise hotels that are near mass entertainment venues. Or, we can simply not let the areas around the high rise hotels be used for mass gatherings. Office buildings and apartment buildings have door staff designed to look for suspicious situations, and security cams, so they are a much lower priority. How many buildings can an ordinary person get into with bag after bag after bag of heavy objects without arousing suspicion? Only in a hotel can that happen, as far as I can see.

Thanks!

is banning guns, then, yes, this gets in the way of that concept, I guess.

Of course, if not a single other weapon were manufactured or sold by a dealer, anywhere in the world, there are already enough weapons out there to do a Las Vegas every day for the rest of my life, and probably yours, too.

... so they install TSA in everyone's bathroom?

But it is funny.

But, go ahead and advocate for it. Nobody's stopping you. Try to get it adopted as part of the official Dem party platform. Maybe it will turn out to be a really popular idea.

I say that as a rape survivor of more than 4 decades who regularly leaves my office and walks 2 blocks to my car at between 2 and 4 in the morning. I long ago decided that I was not willing to live in a box to prevent a recurrence. Restricting my freedom of movement out of fear would mean that the person responsible for the worst day of my life was still controlling me. I am attentive, and I don't decline the offer of anyone who wants to accompany me to my car - but I am not going to schedule my work hours - or call security - every time I need to head to my car late at night.

It is not a matter of learning a lesson. It is a matter of choosing to live versus choosing to exist in an inconvenient life constantly restructured to minimize ever changing risks as the "bad dudes" find new ways to circumvent our safety net.

get rid of the TSA at airports. Terrorists know that they will never get access to a cockpit again to use the plane as a weapon.

Either screen, or just hope it never happens again. But I wouldn't have a lot of hope for that, especially since some evil asshat just showed his fellow losers how to do it.

And then move on.

And I won't be the slightest bit surprised when hotel chains in major cities start to do it, especially if some municipality forces it on them.

I am in favor of being sensible and attentive, but not in reacting to every new attack by further restricting our freedoms in order to prevent that specific attack.

But then again, I come from a faith tradition that treated Native Americans with respect - and left our doors unlocked at a time when most of our neighbors were terrified the "Indians" would scalp them in their sleep.

Living in a fort barricaded against every disaster that we can think of is not my idea of living.

My reasoning? This is yet another reason we need to have a strong public health sector which encourages frequent evaluations.

Sorry don't

... how could it be his fault?

Do you not believe in mental capacity as a legal standard in general?

Just does.

A room full of weapons two broken Windows exposing a killing field, yea he knew what he was doing.

... Would be one where he was aware of what he was doing but was either physically compulsed or incapable of caring.

Planning wouldn't be a mitigating factor in that case.

Let's say he had a tumor exactly like Charles Whitman.

God forbid I get that tumor....

"Mr. Jones we have determined you have a brain tumor and science has proven you will become a mass murderer. Although terminal and you will live only five more months we will be locking you up until your death"

Ridiculous no?

The OP is super invested in this guy being sick from a brain tumor. It couldn't be that he was just an angry, unhinged white male with the desire to kill a lot of people. Nah. Couldn't be that. He was sick. That's the ticket.

One more for my IL.

Not one scientist or doctor, but a medical/psychiatric consensus? Yeah.

I'm not hung up on "evil" as a descriptor, and no one factor or person is going to be to blame. The shooter was as he was made and how he was treated by the world, and it's conceivable that by the tme of the shooting he didn't have much agency.

I still don't think he should be outside a mental hospital for the rest of his life, if that was the case.

There are examples of brain tumors which have led to the complete loss of inhibition but the individuals retain their sense of morality and recognition of "right and wrong." They are completely unable to stop themselves much like an addict willing to cheat, steal and murder to obtain their fix. Sometimes these changes are abrupt but more often than not it is a gradual progression towards less and less inhibition to the point that they must be stopped. If these people were able to ask for help without the stigma and automatic pronouncement of guilt (even if they haven't done anything at the point) perhaps lives could be saved.

Let's for example consider someone who was normal one day and then the next they began having disgusting and sexually deviant thoughts. The thoughts turn to obsession. They start going to brothels but that's not enough. They find children sexually attractive so they try to halt the craving by going to more brothels and prostitutes but that's not enough. They start to collect pedophilic pornography but that's not enough. They eventually attempt to sexually assault their step daughter. The daughter tells her mother, the person is thrown out of the house. They are arrested etc etc etc. All treatment has failed, the person cannot stop. He eventually gets extremely ill and ends up in the hospital. He is making sexually suggestive remarks at everyone at this point. Yet, he can barely walk. He urinates and defecates all over himself but doesn't care. The medical staff recognize that something is very wrong with the man and there is more to the story. They discover a brain tumor which is removed. The man's obsession and complete lack of inhibition is gone, he is now back to the way he was originally. He knew his actions were wrong from the very start but couldn't stop himself.

Where could the man have gone from the moment he discovered his behavior? He had committed no crimes at that point but just the admission of his obsessions would have forever stigmatized and labeled him. We need a new approach. Now, the example I posted is true, it actually happened to a man. It is an extreme example of the thought experiment but I wanted to prove a point. Had access to support been available, a very different outcome may have occurred.

Now, whether or not he was still morally and ethically responsible for his actions. He was absolutely responsible because even though he was unable to halt his actions, he still knew they were wrong. He knew they were wrong but couldn't stop himself and had no place to seek help other than prison. He most certainly would have been killed there. This subject is very complex.

To this day, I don't give a flying fuck what might have been wrong with that evil motherfucker's brain.

But hypothetically, yes, some type of brain damage could make someone not responsible for their actions. Lack of ethical concern alone wouldn't do it for me. Millions of people in the world lack empathy and a feeling of ethical concern, but choose not to murder others.

A brain defect can cause violence, but this attack was extraordinarily well planned. It will take some extraordinary proof.

cause (but maybe even then) isn't an illness itself though, and I see no need to moralize these actions when I think they are better considered as human phenomenons that are far more about neurological triggers and social pressures that pull them...etc. than evil per say. You can certainly have a distorted(an outlier to the general populace) view of what is right and what is wrong, and you can certainly have a distorted interpretation of reality, without that being caused by a tumor. Unless we want to extend the definition of tumor to include the likes of Trump, O'Reiley, etc.

Anyway, I'm not even convinced that there is free will. We act based upon our specific neurology and the specific experiences we've had in life. Can anything be said to be outside of those two components? Yes, our brain does calculations, weighs options, etc...but assuming randomness weren't a factor(and if it were it still wouldn't validate free will), I have no reason to believe that a person living the same moment a million, or a billion times wouldn't ultimately do the same thing every time, because theoretically, the same information, the same instincts, would be at play in each iteration, and would occur in the same chronological order..etc.

If you would be advancing this theory had the shooter been a black or brown person.

Seriously, this is a silly premise. "Yeah so if a white guy did it, it has to be because of a disease."

Nope. Not buying that.

Read my post ... All of it...

Then try again...

You are desperately trying to find some other cause for this insane white man to have committed this heinous crime.

Good luck with that.

If either of us has issues with race I suspect it's you based on your response.

No one suggested anything of the sort until you tried to shoehorn in there...

to try to understand this sort of thing no matter who does it.

I'm just finding the "he is not responsible" posts a little much for me today.

...maybe a discussion forum isn't for you. Have you considered YouTube?

Thanks.

Absolute proof is a high bar to clear, however.

You can't exclude nurture when discussing behavior. It's uncomfortable, but logical to consider that he may have concluded that his plans were justified and even correct. I noted in another thread, that the reasoning behind the conclusion that one has a right to kill is sound. If there is a right to own weapons designed specifically to kill people, then there is a right to kill.

A starting point for speculation on what may have driven his intellectual perspective is that an accountant who loses money is a failure. Maybe it was a devastating self perception that led to self destruction. If there were people who would be hurt because of his behavior maybe he saw it as ethical to remove himself from their lives? In the realm of psychological speculation, maybe he was driven by that kind of suicidal ideation combined with one last self satisfying act to get even with the industry that reeled him in and ultimately caused his failure. I think that is a fairly common oversimplified scenario but contains some established elements of the motivations for suicide and murder. And even with that kind of justification, the fact that he hid could say something about shame or awareness of the wrongness of his actions.

The philosophical discussion on ethics has to include the possibility that he may have thought he was doing someone a favor, as well as the irrational, but natural dispair and self pity. I think it is entirely possible that organic brain damage reduces impulse control. But, there has to be an intellectual seed that could be controlled. It requires too much mental and behavioral effort for the impact of ethics or lack thereof to be excluded.

A friend's husband had a fast and dramatic early onset of dementia at age 60. He changed within weeks from an easy going guy to a nasty, irrational person. Who knows what may have happened in a country where guns are freely available and the culture is ingrained.

On a different but comparable subject, I once read that some researchers consider a tendency to paedophillia to be inborn. I've wrestled with my thoughts on that - what if they just can't help it?

No answers for you. It's a deep rabbit hole.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/play-city-2013/tessa/what-extent-does-your-biology-determine-direction-your-life