Texas shooter and gender dysphoria?

[dUSt]

*Deleted original post from Peter West because it was incorrect/misleading.* -dUSt

[MIKolbe]

He's also brown and possibly not here legally.. soo ogga-booga!!

[Didacus]

Or they will blame societies rejection of his dysphoria as the cause of him being disturbed and form an argument to support gender rights.  Why not?

Tout les raisons sont bonnes pour avancer leurs agenda.

[Lea]

10 hours ago, dUSt said:

But the popular narrative will say that guns were responsible for these kids dying. 

The shooter most likely was psychologically ill, yes. But a psychologicaqlly ill person a) shouldt NOT own or have access to guns and b) without a gun can't shoot elementary schoolers. --> Stricter gun legislation would probably have prevented this and saved thousands of lifes over the years. 

[fides' Jack]

7 minutes ago, Lea said:

Stricter gun legislation would probably have prevented this and saved thousands of lifes over the years. 

You don't know that, any more than you know that looser gun laws would also have prevented this and saved thousands of lives over the years.

The problem is not in our laws, it's in our morals.  People have abandoned God.  This is the result: chaos, psychological problems, no recognition of reality (male and female He created them), etc...  We are reaping what we sowed.  The only solution now that can possibly work is prayer.

Edited May 25, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Seven77]

 of course the problem is in  our morals… That includes idolatry of every kind, including the worship of guns.

[dUSt]

5 hours ago, Lea said:

But a psychologicaqlly ill person a) shouldt NOT own or have access to guns

Totally agree with this.

There's definitely a lot more we could be doing to restrict and limit access to guns, without taking away the ability for mentally stable, law abiding adults to still own them.

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, dUSt said:

Totally agree with this.

There's definitely a lot more we could be doing to restrict and limit access to guns, without taking away the ability for mentally stable, law abiding adults to still own them.

I agree seriously-mentally-ill people should not own or have access to guns.

The problem with this, however, is that it's impossible to legislate.  Who gets the say over what constitutes "psychologically ill"?  How many hundreds of millions of Americans take some kind of anti-depressant or anxiety medication or something similar?  Does post-partum depression count?  If someone is seeing a therapist, do they count as mentally stable?  What about a conspiracy theorist?

And even just the term "law-abiding"...  Should the government take my guns because I don't wear a mask when I'm supposed to?

I don't trust psychologists to make that determination, and I certainly don't trust the government to oversee the psychologists.

There's too many variables.  As such, there is nothing more that the government can do to restrict and limit guns based on a psychological profile, except to enforce the laws that are already there, and that aren't being enforced.

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

of course the problem is in  our morals… That includes idolatry of every kind, including the worship of guns.

Or the worship of government and government control.

[Didacus]

There's a whole bunch of articles saying those pics are not the shooter and he was not a cross dresser...

[debc]

Those pictures were taken from someone's Reddit account and said they weren't the shooter. I wouldn't post things like this until you know they are true. So many crazy sites post things that aren't true and then like most gossip, it becomes true.

After so many years of social media, that type of ignorance shouldn't be tolerated. Fact check before hurting an innocent person by posting his picture. Even if it was, it's just to justify a hatred or bias. His mental illness and we don't know his home life,(how can you not know what's in his room?) and being able to buy a weapon like he had, is the problem, not what he would have worn on a given day.

Edited May 25, 2022 by debc

[Luigi]

The shooter had been bullied (all of his school life) for his stutter and lisp, but he had no record of mental illness. He also had no record of previous involvement with the law. Caveat! - it's possible that he had dealings with the law while he was a juvenile, but juvenile records are usually sealed. If he did have a record of illegal activities as a juvenile, the court could decide to unseal them - now that he is dead. 

My point is that: 1. He had no record of mental illness; 2. he had no history of criminal behavior; 3. he bought the guns and ammunition legally; 4. the school had security on the premises. And this still happened. Evil can rear its ugly head at any time and in any place - the law cannot prevent evil, it can only punish evil-doers after the fact. 

[dUSt]

Apparently the gender dysphoria stuff isn’t true, so I deleted the post from Peter West. 

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, Luigi said:

Evil can rear its ugly head at any time and in any place - the law cannot prevent evil, it can only punish evil-doers after the fact. 

Exactly, thank you.

[debc]

You can have no history of mental illness and still have it. Some families don't believe in getting help for it and ignore symptoms or make excuses for them. He obviously had issues from texts and emails he had , and students have said he was "off" and cutting and hurting himself and other things. Bullying I'm sure happened, he wasn't the type to complain to the principal but you find in many cases that started the mental illness into turning ugly. Some kids hurt themselves, some hurt others. How the brain works and how your environment is effects your actions but if he wasn't able to buy that gun at 18, maybe he would have thought of something else. Why does anyone want a gun like that if not to hurt someone else. What does it cost I wonder? I don't think he worked or drove.

I live in CT and we had a very similar thing happen here and still feeling the after effects of it.

[Nunsuch]

Here is an actual article demonstrating that the rumor of a trans woman doing the shooting is a hoax. Can people please do some simple checking before posting stuff? This took me all of 20 seconds.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-womans-photo-used-spread-baseless-online-theory-texas-shooter-rcna30511

[Luigi]

4 hours ago, debc said:

You can have no history of mental illness and still have it. Some families don't believe in getting help for it and ignore symptoms or make excuses for them.

Yes, I understand that. My only point is that he passed the background checks (or could have, even if Texas doesn't require them). If background checks look for prior criminal behavior and past-or-current mental illness, he still would have been able to buy the guns. No net catches every fish. 

[dUSt]

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Here is an actual article demonstrating that the rumor of a trans woman doing the shooting is a hoax. Can people please do some simple checking before posting stuff? This took me all of 20 seconds.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-womans-photo-used-spread-baseless-online-theory-texas-shooter-rcna30511

That article wasn't online yet, so it might have taken you 20 seconds, but it would not have appeared in search the day before it was actually posted.

[Anastasia13]

4 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

Here is an actual article demonstrating that the rumor of a trans woman doing the shooting is a hoax. Can people please do some simple checking before posting stuff? This took me all of 20 seconds.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trans-womans-photo-used-spread-baseless-online-theory-texas-shooter-rcna30511

Was going to share the same article, but re 20 seconds to check: compare the date and time of the article with the date and time of the OP. Article is the date after the OP in my time zone.

[Nunsuch]

OK. It's true that the story I found was published after the OP here and for that I apologize. But there was literally zero credible evidence for the "gender dysphoria" allegations and all the rest from any reliable sources. I'm of course less concerned that people here re-posted, but that such obviously problematic sources (4chan?) were believed by public officials and others is disturbing.

[dUSt]

3 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

OK. It's true that the story I found was published after the OP here and for that I apologize. But there was literally zero credible evidence for the "gender dysphoria" allegations and all the rest from any reliable sources. I'm of course less concerned that people here re-posted, but that such obviously problematic sources (4chan?) were believed by public officials and others is disturbing.

Agreed, that's why I edited the post and removed it. I remember Peter West from Catholic Answers so I trusted his post just out of association.