Seven killed in mass shooting near University of California

a reply to: muse7

In his 141 page manifesto he talks about stabbing them to death while they slept.

I find it hard to believe they were sleeping on a weekend night at 9:30. The police didn't state how long they had been deceased so he could have killed them the night before, I suppose.

originally posted by: SunnyDee
Nevermind, you just can't have a conspiracy discussion here anymore.

Yes you can but you can also try and get to the truth vs everyone agreeing it was a conspiracy at the start.
You need both sides to make a site work, if you don't then all you have is BIN.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

There's nothing bad about feminism at all. There's nothing wrong about the belief that women are people and deserve to be treated equally as men.

Needing to feel superior to another human being and internalized misogyny are the real problems. No man is entitled to sex or "ego stroking". Women are people whether you like it or not, and they deserve every right to reject someone they aren't interested in.

Humans have evolved to a point where gender roles are absolutely unnecessary and even harmful. A woman can take care of herself the same way a man can take care of himself. We no longer need to depend on roles for survival. YOU depend on yourself and that should be enough.

Are you trying to say that men are nothing more than simple beasts with no control over their own feelings and impulses? That men are too weak to properly function without "ego stroking"? Come on now, that's offensive to every guy out there. It is to me, anyway.

This person was most likely fueled by a combination of misogyny, self-entitlement, and mental illness. If it was only about getting laid, he could have easily found a prostitute. There's no excuse for going on a murderous rampage.

As a guy, I want to able to talk to a woman without her being afraid of getting murdered or raped for rejecting me. I hate knowing that my gender is known for being incapable of self-control and rational thinking. I'm tired of being lumped together with gorillas and bears. This is a problem only we can fix, and it's really not that hard. We just need to teach our sons that they aren't entitled to be with another person and that they are completely capable of taking care of themselves. That manhood isn't defined by belittling women and that femininity isn't bad or weak. You don't need to make someone feel inferior in order to have self-worth.

If you feel like he was in any way, shape, or form justified in what he did, you're part of the problem.

originally posted by: alexj989
Are you trying to say that men are nothing more than simple beasts with no control over their own feelings and impulses? That men are too weak to properly function without "ego stroking"?

Actually, I believe that the guys who subscribe to these mysoginistic theories out of sexual frutration are exactly how you describe it.

The murderer in this case wrote how he felt exactly like that, being jealous of other men for having sex, having fantasies of dating tall blondes that became obsession, blaming women for "rejecting" him when he confessed not even approaching them.

Actually he was honest and writing clearly what many people in these mysoginistic circles believe unconsciously. That they are nothing but animals with urges to be fulfilled because it's "natural".

Hopefully natural selection takes care of this too since most of them won't reproduce because all they can resort to for sex is rape.

This reflects the entitled nature of my generation. Because the instantaneous nature of communication today, many people are living vicariously through the success of athletes, music artists and other celebrities. They see the life that the other people are living, the fruits of their labor, and immediately believe that they deserve to live that lifestyle as well. The see all of the fun and rewards, but are not exposed to the 1000's of hours of practice and training and trying that goes into being "successful". #, wheres my primo Brazilian hooker and Ferrari? God damn it.

originally posted by: CZ75P01
This reflects the entitled nature of my generation. Because the instantaneous nature of communication today, many people are living vicariously through the success of athletes, music artists and other celebrities. They see the life that the other people are living, the fruits of their labor, and immediately believe that they deserve to live that lifestyle as well. The see all of the fun and rewards, but are not exposed to the 1000's of hours of practice and training and trying that goes into being "successful". #, wheres my primo Brazilian hooker and Ferrari? God damn it.

Yes as summed up in this pop song a couple of yrs ago,to be famous or even infamous is key to success all those selfies ,sex tapes even by celebs and starlettes who fear a dip in popularity,instant gratification combined with so-called reality Tee Vee, why not do something extreme and be talked about,I am as concerned with these types as I have someone who have some twisted political agenda or just want rob me and things goes south.

Double post mods pls delete this.

Today I was reading the famous poem "invictus". It's basically about the strength of the human spirit, etc. As I read it, I thought to myself "yes, this is a fantastic poem, definitely inspired..... but it is unaware of it's own presumptuousness". Human beings don't possess resilience unless THEY"VE LEARNED IT FROM OTHERS. Resilience is otherwise known in neuropsychology as "affect regulation" i.e. ones ability to regulate emotional states. Abilities like these aren't some "given", although they might seem so to us. Evolution doesn't equip us with this ability from the get-go. Rather, it equips us with this skill VIA PARENTING. Why do, for example, parents speak to their babies in a markedly different way? That is, why do they raise their voices and exaggerate intonation? This is a PRIMAL INSTINCT which is often treated as "there simply because its there". This is what people think. We do it, but "we don't know why". Like sailors at sea suffering from scurvy, we don't know the value of something until it's gone. Human beings need vitamin C from fruits and vegetables. The human organism depends on it for it to thrive. Likewise, human beings have evolved a tendency of communicating with infants in a MARKED i.e. different way than they would with adults. Why is this? Developmental Psychologists have come to a consensus that marked communication is designed to provide infants with a SENSE OF SELF. Why? When you speak normally to someone, that is, what you say accurately represents your emotions in your voice, then I know that it is YOU I am speaking with. There is a one to one correspondence between your emotional state and your speech. And this is what is received by the other person. But this way of speaking isn't appropriate with a newborn infant, simply because a newborn infant doesn't have anything we can call a self. They aren't exactly a blank slate either, they do have primitive instincts and they're brains are designed to follow a certain developmental pathway, but in order for these capacities to unfold, it has to be exposed to the proper external stimuli.

Marked communication allows the newborn to feel a sense of safety and connection with it's environment. Real responses are too overwhelming. A mother who reflects her true emotional states to her child is bound to create anxiety and fear in its mind. And how do people respond to anxiety and fear? With alertness. The mothers state, or conversely, the fathers state, becomes internalized in the baby as ITS OWN STATE. Because the self does not yet exist - there are no reflective structures in place to distinguish emotional states as THEIR OWN - the baby exposed to frightening emotions i.e. real emotions (something people with borderline personality tendencies can't help but ingrain in their children...hence it is a vicious self perpetuating pathology) will come to see the world in a similar way. If mommy always reacts angrily when the baby makes a mistake, then the baby is likely going to show the same lack of impulse control. The exact direction that pathology takes may be dependent on genetics (i.e one can turn inwards and develop intense shyness and lack of affect, or conversely, will be unruly and abusive in their relationships with others) but this too can be modulated by intensity of disorder.

I suspect that Elliot had extremely negligent parents. His dad probably was/is a narcissist, who dated frequently. His struggles to become a director of movies - and not commercials - was likely a frequent topic of conversation at home. And of course in these conversations, frustration and anger was heard in the voice. So I think it's absolutely safe to say that Elliot likely internalized these same sort of values. Life meant "money, cars, and women".

However, many kids grow up in this sort of context and don't go on to develop a borderline pathology and certainly do not go on rampages. This means Elliots father-mother may have been abusive and negligent in other ways. I am leaning towards negligent, as his mother seemed to be preoccupied with dating rich directors like George Lucas while his dad was out finding work. This forlorn environment often leads to "acting out" in children as an unconscious way to get attention. This would explain his frequent visits to the psychiatrist. But, clearly, Elliots issues did not abate. Perhaps his parents thought to glibly about their sons situation? Instead of considering their own role in helping him develop, they found a psychiatrist who gave them the convenient diagnosis of "aspergers" - convenient because it doesn't implicate anything about them. An aspergers diagnosis means "genetic in origin" and thus minimizes parental input in creating the pathology exhibited by their son. The years pass by, his parents relax back into their routines, still not focused and mature enough to realize how badly disorganized Elliots mind had become, and seemingly only pay attention when his ideation has become vocalized all over the internet - perhaps they were alerted to it by family friends. Still, they dont do much. Elliot afterall is their product, and being comfortably into their 40's, they cant imagine another situation but the one they have. Of course, they would probably have liked that Elliot was normal, but they weren't aware enough to realize that his personality and develop was a creature of their neglect.

This is what I think is most probable^^ The aspergers diagnosis is hardly tenable. Flat effect does not mean "aspergers". Idiotic psychiatrists who pay little attention to attachment history i.e. developmental context, love, just LOVEEEE, easy biological explanations like aspergers. Perhaps because psychiatry as a profession has grown indolent and rather ignorant of psychological explanations for pathology.

His killing people may have been a roll of the dice. If you combine bad parenting with a strange context (growing up in hollywood), and you give the person experience after experience of struggling to connect with others; and you add a "dash" of absentee role models, people who could have helped elliot deal with his problems, then you can get this horrible outcome.

But I suppose it's human nature to be superstitious and assume that he was just "evil" at his core - as opposed to bat-# crazy. Or, if you're naive and think what one doctor says is fact, you'll opt with the aspergers diagnosis, ignorant of the fact that the condition itself is vague and the thing which may have been interpreted as "aspergers" - i.e flat affect, could more plausibly be explained by developmental trauma.

His story is pretty sad.

it has the mixture of..many things.. social pressure to have sex...not be a virgin....or was he a response to modern day feminism?

originally posted by: luciddream
His story is pretty sad.

it has the mixture of..many things.. social pressure to have sex...not be a virgin....or was he a response to modern day feminism?

Really ??.having a hard time getting laid and a response to feminism?? com' on you don't believe that, place the blame where it belonged...not his parents,feminist but on him! back in the day one had to work hard to land a woman in bed, at-least 3 dates if you were that lucky, today life is much easier for the young to go out and get some, perhaps under an hr in some cases,from HI there! to can we hook-up again?? that was great.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: luciddream
His story is pretty sad.

it has the mixture of..many things.. social pressure to have sex...not be a virgin....or was he a response to modern day feminism?

Really ??.having a hard time getting laid and a response to feminism?? com' on you don't believe that, place the blame where it belonged...not his parents,feminist but on him! back in the day one had to work hard to land a woman in bed, at-least 3 dates if you were that lucky, today life is much easier for the young to go out and get some, perhaps under an hr in some cases,from HI there! to can we hook-up again?? that was great.

The blame is clearly on him for having completely biased beliefs of society.

When you read his manifesto it's clear he thinks that friends and women come naturally to those who are cool, without them having to do anything.

It's obviously completely naive and you can't make friends if you aren't at least a bit social, which he was absolutely not.

Instead of understanding that his situation was because of his shyness, and not "rejection and bullying", he started to put the blame on everyone but him because of his narcissism, and to de-humanize everyone but him.

It's clearly a sad story but there is nothing absolving this guy, he wass fully responsible of his actions, fueled by anger and bitterness, planned for almost 10 years, even though they are because of completely incorrect beliefs about society.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Useless leftist enduced gun control laws of course.

An armed populace. See how simple that is? ~$heopleNation

How dare you presume to speak for me.

I own and regularly shoot guns for recreation; personal preference is shotguns for skeet, trap, and sporting clays - but target pistols on a range is fun as well. You don't know me, and you're wrong to assume otherwise.

As I actually have experience firing a wide variety of weapons, from a .223 to 20mm, and their limitations... I asked how to stop mobile mass casualty scenario.

Drawing and firing takes a moment - by which time, the aggressor in a moving vehicle is probably gone behind cover in a city street. In the dark, target identification is much more difficult. At range, in the midst of a group of other potential aggressors, this would be even harder. Stop being a jerk.

originally posted by: Greven
How dare you presume to speak for me.

I did not realize that calling leftist enduced gun control laws useless, was presuming to speak for you. Calm down now.

I own and regularly shoot guns for recreation; personal preference is shotguns for skeet, trap, and sporting clays - but target pistols on a range is fun as well. You don't know me, and you're wrong to assume otherwise.

Well that is great. We need people with proper training that can cut down the number of casualties from nutcases like this kid. Do you have a conceal to carry permit?

As I actually have experience firing a wide variety of weapons, from a .223 to 20mm, and their limitations... I asked how to stop mobile mass casualty scenario.

And I said an armed populace. I will also add that there is no such thing as the perfect scenario. Sitting there defenseless is suicide though.

Drawing and firing takes a moment - by which time, the aggressor in a moving vehicle is probably gone behind cover in a city street. In the dark, target identification is much more difficult. At range, in the midst of a group of other potential aggressors, this would be even harder.

Every situation is different, but having the chance to save innocent lives is more important than dwelling on all the things that can go wrong.

Simply doing nothing will only increase the number of body bags.

Stop being a jerk.

If you take me expressing my opinions as being a jerk, you may as well get accustom to it. ~$heopleNation

gun laws=guns are freely available if you want one no matter what.........no gun laws except for farmers means i have no idea where to pick one up so i can,t just go to some store and pick one up and go take out someone i don,t like.

right to bear arms?my right taking away has done me no harm and probably cost no one their life,i know thats madness,if i had the right i could shoot anyone i like,whats wrong with me?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
I did not realize that calling leftist enduced gun control laws useless, was presuming to speak for you. Calm down now.

Perhaps you forgot the train of discussion. Allow me to give you a refresher.

originally posted by: Greven
Do you have an alternative that would have stopped this?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Your solution will never stop this, because people will always be able to obtain firearms illegally.

originally posted by: Greven
What solution is that?

originally posted by: SheopleNation
Useless leftist enduced gun control laws of course.

Everyone see why I have a problem with this?

I asked for an alternative solution to stop this - a mass casualty, highly mobile aggressor scenario. The immediate response by those who are... extremely supportive of gun rights... is to categorize me as wanting more restrictive gun laws or something similar.

This is not what I said, and saying to calm down is a deflection in attempt to save face. Everyone can see it now, quite clearly. Do I have a concealed carry license? No. Do I feel I need one? No. I live in Oklahoma, that should tell you enough.

Do I think concealed carry would have stopped this scenario? Only if the victims at his apartment had had one and had the opportunity to use it; there was little to no reaction time afterwards for his victims. This is a different scenario from an enclosed area, such as a mall or restaurant, where such an opportunity is much more likely to change the outcome, and ya'll need to realize this.

originally posted by: Greven

Everyone see why I have a problem with this?

Quit worrying about what everyone here thinks.

I asked for an alternative solution to stop this - a mass casualty, highly mobile aggressor scenario. The immediate response by those who are... extremely supportive of gun rights... is to categorize me as wanting more restrictive gun laws or something similar.

Ok, so you say that you don't desire more gun laws. However you clearly have a problem with people being armed, or at the very least, you know for 100% sure that no lives could have been saved in such a scenario. Well, you're wrong about that.

This is not what I said, and saying to calm down is a deflection in attempt to save face. Everyone can see it now, quite clearly. Do I have a concealed carry license? No. Do I feel I need one? No. I live in Oklahoma, that should tell you enough.

Forget the popularity contest. Of course it is your right to not obtain a carry and conceal permit, just as it should be anyone's right to do so.

Do I think concealed carry would have stopped this scenario? Only if the victims at his apartment had had one and had the opportunity to use it; there was little to no reaction time afterwards for his victims. This is a different scenario from an enclosed area, such as a mall or restaurant, where such an opportunity is much more likely to change the outcome, and ya'll need to realize this.

I disagree, Law enforcement is doing just that, and he was stopped now wasn't he? I don't need to realize anything, because I believe you're wrong about the possible outcome. To me, it's worth the risk in order to save lives. We simply disagree. That is what people frequently do here. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: brookster18

I think Ted Bundy is generally reffered to as a nice guy. The Night Stalker bloke was generally not a nice guy.

Simple.

It's not that simple. Ted Bundy was just more intelligent, and socially adaptable than Richard Ramirez. They simply were fooled into believing Ted was a nice guy. I think it's pretty clear that he was not. ~$heopleNation

Yeah the above is from a Lib media ,I make no apologies klik and listen
make sure you know that your loved ones is at risk,enough of the hand wringing
over making arms manufacturers happy which is what this all boils down to,not
the 2nd amendment.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
No!.. it's not from the constitution but from the declaration of
Independence,that led to the constitution..can we have a lil
life..pls

originally posted by: Spider879

Yeah the above is from a Lib media ,I make no apologies klik and listen
make sure you know that your loved ones is at risk,enough of the hand wringing
over making arms manufacturers happy which is what this all boils down to,not
the 2nd amendment.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
No!.. it's not from the constitution but from the declaration of
Independence,that led to the constitution..can we have a lil
life..pls

This Man makes a lot of good points about the failure of our Government here in the United States, but unfortunately he makes them about all the wrong reasons because he is blinded by his emotions. Martinez sounds like an irrational nutcase, and I am sorry that he lost his son, but he is obviously using this tragedy to politically attack the 2nd amendment. He is delusional, and clearly needs some serious help.

Then, you have the mentally deranged media gal here in this video as well trying to blame everything on Guns, instead of focusing on the failed social issues, and the failed paid so called psychologists that were treating this lunatic. If you read his manifesto, I am half way through the 140 page drivel, one quickly understands that society does share some of the blame, but most of all it's his divorced family, his lack of any support from his gutless Father, and his idiot step Mother who seemed to get off on making things even worse for this kid.

His real Mother seemed to be the only one who actually cared for him, from what I have read thus far. There are no excuses for what this sick and twisted brat did, but the facts need to be revealed. I personally blame him more than anyone, then next I blame the father and his nutcase wife (Elliot's step Mom). Then it comes down to the self appointed fraud for a psychologist who even after the parents called him on the very day of the massacre, told them that the shootings in Santa Barbara were not related to their son. Well, the idiot was wrong! I wonder if he was playing World Of Warcraft with Elliot just as his teacher was?

This is what happens when rich idiots ignore their child, try to send him off to Morocco, then after that weak minded idea fails, they turn their child's well being over to some fraud for a psychologist. That is what these pigs do, they take money from rich idiots who are much too busy to actually have a conversation with their own child. Then, the rest of us get to deal with the results of their lack of parenting skills. ~$heopleNation

Why were cops kept away from the area?

truthfrequencyradio.com...
Police scanner feed(4:20mark):
dispatch to units: "...do not enter Isla Vista. Stage on..."
unidentified PO: "I'm not sure you're supposed to go in that far. ... ...Advise you to move little further away from the area until we get clearance from PD."

and this:

unidentified PO: "Two suspects with gunshot wounds."