<p>“New information about Elliot Rodger, 22, has been revealed from his parents 1999 divorce. According to his mother, Li Chen Rodger, her son was a “high-functioning autistic” child who could be considered special needs. However, Elliot’s father, Peter Rodger, countered Li’s claims, stating that he had not been made aware of this diagnosis.”</p>
<p>Conflict in the family about his issues. And, probably a large dose of denial. Not unusual. </p>
<p>I’ve heard from several special needs professionals that fathers are more likely to be in denial of their child’s status and needs, and mothers are more likely to have a realistic appraisal of their child. And I’ve observed that in my own friendships as well.</p>
<p>It’s also true that parents with special needs kids are more likely to get divorced. Having kids with disabilities is a huge stress in a marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to mention there’s a possibility the therapist may have been mistaken in his/her diagnosis and/or wasn’t able to assess him again in late adolescence/early adulthood when personality disorders or some severe mental illnesses tend to start manifesting. </p>
<p>@mimk6 Thanks for that, I didn’t see that article the first time. But a psychiatric hold wasn’t what I was even thinking of so much, when I mention that it might in 20 20 hindsight have been a good idea to check the gun records. I meant, if he was living somewhere that didn’t allow them, denied owning any when records showed he did, would that have been enough, given the parental concern call and the prior pushing on the balcony/ledge incident, and the videos, to get probable cause to search the apartment. Maybe not, but maybe, depending on what they knew. And what if they had found the guns? Not necessarily anything, but that AND the manifesto might have been enough to do something.</p>
<p>But I am not blaming anyone for the past, I do understand we don’t want to lock up everyone who ‘might be a problem’. I don’t want to improperly increase warrantless searches, either. I was just wondering if this flagged potential for improvement of the system in the future in a way that makes sense. It might not. It might just be one of those things that are statistically very rare, but from which we can’t really protect ourselves in any reasonable way.</p>
<p>Just to clarify . . . creatine is not a steroid, doesn’t cause ‘roid rage’ and is not an addictive substance. Sometimes it is packages with caffeine or other substances though. When you do something like sprint, lift a heavy weight etc. the first couple seconds of action are fueled by an energy pathway know as the phosphocreatine system. Our bodies then recycle the naturally occurring creatine to use again in our next bout of work. The theory behind taking a supplement is that a weight lifter or training athlete won’t have to rest as long between sets for the naturally occurring creatine to recycle if they introduce a supplemental source and hence, will be able to train harder. It draws water into the muscles and can cause puffiness but does not cause a person to gain bulk more easily - just theoretically allows them to train harder. I would completely discount what this “friend” said as even guys who take creatine don’t always know what it does . . . they just think it will help.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no doubt, that if guns didn’t exist, no one would be killed by bullet. But we can only solve these shootings with realistic measures. Western Europe and Australia don’t have a Second Amendment. There are 400 million guns in private ownership in the US, that will not magically disappear even if we could magically outlaw gun ownership with a pen. Nearly every gun owned is not used to kill someone. It is the problems with the very few that need to be specifically addressed, imo. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I like nearly everything you’ve said on this thread, with the exception of “redneck culture.” Think about it. There have been many sensationalized shooting incidents involving upper middle-class folks; Nancy Lanza, for one, although you could put the late Mrs. Lanza in the “survivalist” credo group, according to some. I guess there are plenty of rednecks in survivalist camps.</p>
<p>Rodger and his family were not rednecks either. </p>
<p>Three of the six people killed were apparently killed with machete and/or hammer. ER considered his car a weapon to the point where he had planned to go borrow his Dad’s Mercedes SUV to have a more effective weapon in mowing down pedestrians. The skateboarders and cyclist he mowed down were not collateral damage but targets. Guns imho are not the issue here. If he hadn’t had this, he’d have used poison, whatever it took, imho. Or bombs.</p>
<p>Seven people died. Over half, four of them, died by gun. The killer was determined to kill, but if he hadn’t had guns he wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people. The four people he mowed down with his car didn’t die. He also wounded eight people with gunfire. It’s clear that guns made this attack more serious and more deadly than it would have been if the killer hadn’t had guns.</p>
<p>I bet the parents of Veronika Weiss, Katie Cooper and Chris Martinez wish they were visiting their kids in the hospital after the kids had been hit by a car, instead of planning their funerals.</p>
<p>@cobrat, you are mistaken about the diagnosis/medication reporting requirement. A diagnosis of severe mental illness and/or being prescribed a heavy-duty anti-psychotic medication is NOT automatically followed up with a report to authorities. The diagnosis and medication remain confidential in the absence of hospitalization and/or legal involvement.</p>
<p>I get that the Rodger and Lanza families weren’t rednecks. But it’s the redneck culture that perpetuates this gotta-have-a-gun-and-you’ll-take-my-gun-from-my-cold-dead-hands mentality. I freely admit I’m a northern liberal snob and I think the whole gun culture is a huge embarrassment to this country. And yes, W Europe and Australia don’t have a Second Amendment. Maybe we shouldn’t, either. </p>
<p>But we do. So, why not start smaller? Psychotics shouldn’t be able to buy guns at WalMart. They will skip the meds one day, they always do. But, if people can’t even agree on that the gun debate is dead on arrival. Still, it changes nothing. He would have found a gun somewhere. He was smart and he had plenty of money. Or he would have bombed the sorority house. I have no answers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of folks forget or chose to ignore the part that the right to bear arms is in the context of a “well-regulated militia”. </p>
<p>At the very least, I’d think that second part would mean the right is subject to reasonable regulation…but many seem to disagree. </p>
<p>Who disagrees with not selling firearms to the mentally ill? I don’t even think the NRA disagrees with that one. But, there seems to be a glitch somewhere. Where?</p>
<p>@Cardinal Fang do you seriously think he wouldn’t have gone the pressure cooker route or whatever if he hadn’t had access to guns? The machetes sure weren’t better than the guns, and the ‘fourth’ death by gun was himself, which could have been managed another way. As far as his manifesto was concerned he only ever once even went somewhere to try and learn how to shoot. It wasn’t like he was obsessed with his guns the way he was with sex or retribution.</p>
<p>@actingmt the ‘glitch’ is determining when a person is mentally ill in a way they should be denied rights, when they have not been proven to ever have harmed anyone yet. It is finding a methodology that stops killings such as these, without labeling a vast number of innocent but unhappy people and denying them rights others have. I’m not against the discussion to find a way to do that, but it might involve a hearing. Or maybe mental illness of certain types or in combination with other things might give more probable cause for a search of those who have purchased guns. Here I don’t know that anyone even checked the fairly exhaustive California gun registry to see if he owned guns. Perhaps that protocol could be added in the case of health checks on the mentally ill. The problem also is that the more you ‘trigger’ with the status of ‘mentally ill’, the less likely a person who understands the stigma will be to get help leading to such a diagnosis to begin with.</p>
<p>"Who disagrees with not selling firearms to the mentally ill? "</p>
<p>Who is so dumb to think that everyone who is mentally ill has a big red sticker on their forehead saying so?
Don’t you get that people may not be mentally ill until … they snap?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite a lot of people including myself disagree with having special rules about firearm purchases that would apply to people diagnosed with mental illness or mental disorders, but not other people. It would be an unwarranted discrimination against tens of millions of non-dangerous people.</p>
<p>From what I can gather so far, the family has had an attorney and family friend speak for them to the press. Their basic message is that they did everything possible for this kid and never suspected the extent of his mental illness. What they would like the public to know and what is really the truth may not be one and the same. What really went on among these family members is unknown. This could have been a very dysfunctional family; we really have no way of knowing. </p>
<p>One problem I have with this situation is this 22 yr old kid has enough money to live in a high cost community, buy expensive clothes and drive a costly car and yet has not attended school for three years or had any income whatsoever. During this period of time he refuses to take his medication and goes to a therapist sporadically, if at all. I would say the parents have enabled his lifestyle and gave him the means to carry out this nefarious plot. </p>
<p>
I disagreed a couple pages ago.</p>