Serial Killer in CA

(05-29-2014, 07:24 AM)Oni Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

This kid was clearly troubled and the government had plenty of time to stop him before this happened. California has atrocious laws regarding mental health and they were F's in 4 out of 5 categories by the Treatment Advocacy Center. It's clear he had mental issues that went unaddressed. He should have been involuntarily admitted somewhere. Clearly California needs to work on its mental health laws and not their gun laws.

Unfortunately, these shootings are used as fodder for gun control advocates, even though they don't account for a fraction of the murders committed in a year. Stupidly enough, you hear about them the most. In 2012, Disaster Center

[To see links please register here]

there were 1,884 murders in California. Compare 7 to 1,884. That's in California, from a mentally ill kid. There was a Harvard study ( ) that examined international statistics between different countries. The conclusion was that there isn't a direct correlation between more gun ownership and violent crime. As much as some people would like to believe, it's not that simple.

If he had been admitted somewhere, 6 people would still be alive. The last mass murder there, 13 years ago, wasn't even committed with a gun. It was committed with a car. If people truly want mass shootings like these to stop, they need to stop worrying about guns, and worry more about mental health. It’s not as simple as just banning guns, as

[To see links please register here]

guns don’t just vanish. We’d still have violent crime and they would still be obtainable for people as determined as Rodgers.


Do you know how much it costs to keep a criminal alive and well for that long? A lot of money. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would argue it's more efficient. You're going to take away that person's life as they know it. They are going to have their rights taken and be forced to live in a cage the rest of their life. One is not much better than the other, but one certainly costs a hell of a lot more.

True, I don't disagree that it would be extremely costly for life imprisonment, but the death penalty has been subject to quite a lot of controversy regarding how, when and why to use it. How do you measure someone's life, when they've killed several children? Or if they indirectly caused the death of dozens? How about murdering two people in cold blood? And how much is someone's life worth when you weight it against something like cost efficiency, prison overpopulation, and choosing to just simply get rid of them?

That's not to say I think being locked away is more right or just, if not even less humane nor ethical. Just, personally, I'd see it as a greater punishment than letting them end it so easily. We may have gotten a bit off topic, but yeah.

This kid was clearly troubled and the government had plenty of time to stop him before this happened. California has atrocious laws regarding mental health and they were F's in 4 out of 5 categories by the Treatment Advocacy Center. It's clear he had mental issues that went unaddressed. He should have been involuntarily admitted somewhere. Clearly California needs to work on its mental health laws and not their gun laws.

Unfortunately, these shootings are used as fodder for gun control advocates, even though they don't account for a fraction of the murders committed in a year. Stupidly enough, you hear about them the most. In 2012, Disaster Center

[To see links please register here]

there were 1,884 murders in California. Compare 7 to 1,884. That's in California, from a mentally ill kid. There was a Harvard study ( ) that examined international statistics between different countries. The conclusion was that there isn't a direct correlation between more gun ownership and violent crime. As much as some people would like to believe, it's not that simple.

If he had been admitted somewhere, 6 people would still be alive. The last mass murder there, 13 years ago, wasn't even committed with a gun. It was committed with a car. If people truly want mass shootings like these to stop, they need to stop worrying about guns, and worry more about mental health. It’s not as simple as just banning guns, as

[To see links please register here]

guns don’t just vanish. We’d still have violent crime and they would still be obtainable for people as determined as Rodgers.

(05-29-2014, 07:05 AM)MiS Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

@Duubz I see, that's quite a lot of apathy. I'm not really trying to cast a negative light on you or anything, just trying to get a better understanding of things. So you don't value human life as high in regards to others, is that right?


In my personal opinion, I'd rather let the criminal in question rot away in prison for the rest of his life; the fact that they have to sit in a small square box behind bars with nothing left but their thoughts and regrets (if any) seems more anguishing than just having their life end just like that. Let whatever happens, happens, inside that prison, whether they takes their own life, some vigilante inside does it for them, or they deteriorate away in a cell.

Do you know how much it costs to keep a criminal alive and well for that long? A lot of money. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would argue it's more efficient. You're going to take away that person's life as they know it. They are going to have their rights taken and be forced to live in a cage the rest of their life. One is not much better than the other, but one certainly costs a hell of a lot more.

(05-29-2014, 07:05 AM)MiS Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

In my personal opinion, I'd rather let the criminal in question rot away in prison for the rest of his life; the fact that they have to sit in a small square box behind bars with nothing left but their thoughts and regrets (if any) seems more anguishing than just having their life end just like that. Let whatever happens, happens, inside that prison, whether they takes their own life, some vigilante inside does it for them, or they deteriorate away in a cell.

Criminal is alive in the cell; life sentence:
- We have to pay metric asstons of money to keep the criminal alive
- Prison population increased

Better to just get rid of the criminal and execute them.

(05-29-2014, 07:24 AM)Oni Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

Unfortunately, these shootings are used as fodder for gun control advocates, even though they don't account for a fraction of the murders committed in a year. Stupidly enough, you hear about them the most. In 2012, Disaster Center

[To see links please register here]

there were 1,884 murders in California. Compare 7 to 1,884. That's in California, from a mentally ill kid. There was a Harvard study ( ) that examined international statistics between different countries. The conclusion was that there isn't a direct correlation between more gun ownership and violent crime. As much as some people would like to believe, it's not that simple.

In conclusion:

This kid was clearly troubled and the government had plenty of time to stop him before this happened. California has atrocious laws regarding mental health and they were F's in 4 out of 5 categories by the Treatment Advocacy Center. It's clear he had mental issues that went unaddressed. He should have been involuntarily admitted somewhere. Clearly California needs to work on its mental health laws and not their gun laws.

Unfortunately, these shootings are used as fodder for gun control advocates, even though they don't account for a fraction of the murders committed in a year. Stupidly enough, you hear about them the most. In 2012, Disaster Center

[To see links please register here]

there were 1,884 murders in California. Compare 7 to 1,884. That's in California, from a mentally ill kid. There was a Harvard study ( ) that examined international statistics between different countries. The conclusion was that there isn't a direct correlation between more gun ownership and violent crime. As much as some people would like to believe, it's not that simple.

If he had been admitted somewhere, 6 people would still be alive. The last mass murder there, 13 years ago, wasn't even committed with a gun. It was committed with a car. If people truly want mass shootings like these to stop, they need to stop worrying about guns, and worry more about mental health. It’s not as simple as just banning guns, as

[To see links please register here]

guns don’t just vanish. We’d still have violent crime and they would still be obtainable for people as determined as Rodgers.

(05-29-2014, 07:05 AM)MiS Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

@Duubz I see, that's quite a lot of apathy. I'm not really trying to cast a negative light on you or anything, just trying to get a better understanding of things. So you don't value human life as high in regards to others, is that right?


In my personal opinion, I'd rather let the criminal in question rot away in prison for the rest of his life; the fact that they have to sit in a small square box behind bars with nothing left but their thoughts and regrets (if any) seems more anguishing than just having their life end just like that. Let whatever happens, happens, inside that prison, whether they takes their own life, some vigilante inside does it for them, or they deteriorate away in a cell.

Do you know how much it costs to keep a criminal alive and well for that long? A lot of money. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would argue it's more efficient. You're going to take away that person's life as they know it. They are going to have their rights taken and be forced to live in a cage the rest of their life. One is not much better than the other, but one certainly costs a hell of a lot more.

(05-29-2014, 07:24 AM)Oni Wrote:

[To see links please register here]

This kid was clearly troubled and the government had plenty of time to stop him before this happened. California has atrocious laws regarding mental health and they were F's in 4 out of 5 categories by the Treatment Advocacy Center. It's clear he had mental issues that went unaddressed. He should have been involuntarily admitted somewhere. Clearly California needs to work on its mental health laws and not their gun laws.

Unfortunately, these shootings are used as fodder for gun control advocates, even though they don't account for a fraction of the murders committed in a year. Stupidly enough, you hear about them the most. In 2012, Disaster Center

[To see links please register here]

there were 1,884 murders in California. Compare 7 to 1,884. That's in California, from a mentally ill kid. There was a Harvard study ( ) that examined international statistics between different countries. The conclusion was that there isn't a direct correlation between more gun ownership and violent crime. As much as some people would like to believe, it's not that simple.

If he had been admitted somewhere, 6 people would still be alive. The last mass murder there, 13 years ago, wasn't even committed with a gun. It was committed with a car. If people truly want mass shootings like these to stop, they need to stop worrying about guns, and worry more about mental health. It’s not as simple as just banning guns, as

[To see links please register here]

guns don’t just vanish. We’d still have violent crime and they would still be obtainable for people as determined as Rodgers.


Do you know how much it costs to keep a criminal alive and well for that long? A lot of money. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would argue it's more efficient. You're going to take away that person's life as they know it. They are going to have their rights taken and be forced to live in a cage the rest of their life. One is not much better than the other, but one certainly costs a hell of a lot more.

True, I don't disagree that it would be extremely costly for life imprisonment, but the death penalty has been subject to quite a lot of controversy regarding how, when and why to use it. How do you measure someone's life, when they've killed several children? Or if they indirectly caused the death of dozens? How about murdering two people in cold blood? And how much is someone's life worth when you weight it against something like cost efficiency, prison overpopulation, and choosing to just simply get rid of them?

That's not to say I think being locked away is more right or just, if not even less humane nor ethical. Just, personally, I'd see it as a greater punishment than letting them end it so easily. We may have gotten a bit off topic, but yeah.