My lord... I just want to safe this forever. Very well spoken, thank you for this read, I am glad that there are others who think like this.

Generally, it's normal, well adjusted individuals who think like this.

Kay, so what's the story behind this? O_o

Some creep went and shot up random people because girls would not fuck him.


Basically he peed a little because he could not get his way.

Whaaaaaat. Someone in the furry community or is this on the news?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_I.....ista_shootings

Uuuugh.. I just found a link to all his writings. Wow. Women haters. *shudders*

http://www.click2houston.com/news/R.....bings/26153616

The creep in question has had a long history of traumatic abuse, starting as the victim and moving to the abuser, as most abuse stories go.

That's actually incorrect.

"From his own description, Rodger was not abused or even neglected by his parents, who were long divorced. He had siblings, including a younger brother who looked up to him but who Rodger nonetheless planned to kill as part of his rampage."

From the article "Portrait of a Psychopath: UCSB Shooter Elliot Rodger a Child of Hollywood, Privilege, Isolation", found here: http://www.thewrap.com/elliot-rodge.....ege-isolation/

He was an entitled shit, and that's what led to this, in the end.

Ah, point. Sorry, I read too much into what you said. My apologies.

I would like to know if he was abused by anyone.

From what I have seen, it just seemed like he was a brat who thought he deserved more, and he just got more and more angry when he didn't get his way.


Some people just get that way. Some people are just nuts, and nothing can be done. Society will try to prevent this by pointing and blaming someone else, but it's very possible that the problem was himself all along.


So far, the lesson simply seems to be, "Be patient, and don't take your lack of personal achievements out on others."

The dude was most definitely crazy, like full on nuts. Whether it was because of something external or he just...let himself go isn't really known. The guy was weapons-grade fuckwit, we can all agree.

a lot of people seem to be as childish as this. A lot of grown up people. If I was less jaded I'd be frightened, but I've been on internet long enough to figure that a lot of people seem to be allowed to lock themselves away and saturate themselves in their own ideas.

and some people do it together. Just look at WBC

I am also curious.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/R.....bings/26153616

was so dumb... then when i saw his age i was just blown away at how...idiotic it was. i read the pages of junk he wrote and was just...
mental illness does not pardon or excuse him.

THANK YOU!

Here, for anyone confused
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_I.....ista_shootings

Yes! Well stated, and all very true.

Damn Straight. *nods*

I wish I could favorite journals, goddess knows I lived through all of this sadly.
Also such privileges and ideals like sex, and respect can be revoked.

Obedience and Submission should NEVER happen

Exactly, but they can lose my respect for them as well.
Priviledge isn't the right word but you got my intent.

Yes, respect and honour are earned by simply doing the right thing, whether or not you earn anything from it.

True, but they can also be lost is what I meant.

I will keep these in mind if i ever find one :D

Totally agree.
Side note: Whoever that guy was, he is a total idiotic over-reactive loser. The person basically freaked out over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

I'd like to add that at no point are you owed sex. EVER. Even when married. It shouldn't matter if it's the woman you love of 22 years of marriage, or the girl on your first date, it is HER body, and she is the ONLY one to consent to sharing it with you.

Adultery is a crime in the sense that you bring problems and strife into someone else's established relationships. It is a crime because the problems and anger that follow it often lead to terrible things.

I agree with this as well.

People are calling him an over dramatic douchebag.

How right they are....

What really got me about this creep, was the crazy I-am-superior attitude he had. It makes me wonder about the people online that post ramblings about other people getting "what they deserve" and the like.
What a mess this whole thing is...a shame this whole thing couldn't have been stopped before it started.

You get more and more awesome as time goes on, y'know?

This is amazing advice people forget to follow. Sometimes I find myself slipping through the cracks, but it's good to get a reminder.

These people don't understand the differences between right and wrong so trying to explain it to them isn't going to make any difference, really. Or they do understand and they're just ignoring it anyway.

Sociopaths have always existed and always will.

Having been with a few male sociopaths though, what's odd is even when they have a partner, they seem to find ways to make it impossible for that person not to leave them at some point or another. I can take plenty of abuse in a relationship, and yet I still found these sorts impossible to deal with. I'm not sure why some people remain trapped with them, because even if you enjoy that kind of abuse, they'll find ways to remove that element of enjoyment from the whole relationship-- Their goal is to change you as a person, to weaken you.

Bravo, sir, well said.

Happy to see some sanity!

That would suck to get shot in a drive-by. I'm walking along and some crazy just shoots me dead, for no particular reason. These things seem to be getting more random every year

All of this!
Part of what scares me the most is how many people are posting comments supporting what had happened.

Yeah, I'm hoping that it's just internet trolls. It's extremely disturbing, that people would support what has happened, and what this kid did.

Holy shit, I just realized after reading this why I am both perpetually single and okay with it o_O

http://img.pandawhale.com/38848-The.....s-gif-UHzu.gif
http://i.qkme.me/3s253w.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/glee/images.....9/Blam_hug.gif

You've earned even more of my respect

I dunno how I completely missed this news.

I agree.

I could relate to this guy, the unpopular guy, the average Joe who isn't a football player or big man on campus. Been there, done that. I was the average guy who got rejected by ALL the pretty girls in high school. The phrase, “it's better to have love and loss than to never have loved at all" is true in a sense. But come on, shooting girls for rejecting him? He took a rejection way too far. Those girls weren't even remotely interested in him, and that was that. Should've just dropped it and let fate intervene.
Does being a rejected unpopular guy in college justify six college students being shot and stabbed? ABSOLUTELY NOT! No rejection could be justifiable with such extreme actions. Worse, people for and against gun control will have a field day in the aftermath.

IF I COULD FAVORITE THIS JOURNAL I WOULD...

You should added in a bit for people who don't care about marriage but just wanna be in a relationship regardless. :U A domestic partnership for example is pretty much the same as a marriage minus the ceremony and a piece of paper in my opinion. In the end-- the other person shouldn't have to give up the goods until their damn ready-- if that includes marriage first then fine!

Also on that same note-- I wish people understood that being in someones vagina or sitting on someones dick for a while is a privilege. Not a requirement. u v u Same thing with...getting affection back from someone.

Sure-- it'd be nice to get as much back as you put into something but-- even then, you can't force some things. u___u Sometimes you just gonna be like "man fuck" grab a drink, cry over it a bit and then go back on the prowl.

I'm glad you also explained the part about the cage too. >____> That's one thing SOOOOOO many couples don't fucking get. If you feel the need to FIGHT to keep them 'under control' then it's not worth it bro. Just let em off the leash.

Well said.

This whole thing is sad. :/

I was in this kid's position, too, for a lot of my early life. Luckily, I turned out OK... for the most part.

I'm just worried that politicians are going to try to use this as yet another "WE NEED GUN CONTROL!" jumping-off point like Sandy Hook (which we do, but saying things like "Gun control could have prevented this!" is totally ignorant). And I'm worried that the message of "Hey, the mental health of our kids is important" may get ignored.

Oh, better gun control is definitely something that we need, and is warranted. I'm just mostly worried that this tragedy will be ruthlessly used as a political tool by people who don't actually care about the victims involved, and who only see passing gun control as a way to increase their political credit with a certain constituency. Then again, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing... kinda.

I think the most valuable thing anti-gun politicians can do in this case is evaluate why the system failed, propose realistic solutions targeted specifically at those failures, and try to avoid going overboard to the point where the NRA lobby is able to poke holes in their arguments and raise questions about how reasonable their solutions are. But even then, I think opposition will be strong. The NRA is almost comically against any kind of gun control, even gun control measures that most of their members agree with, because they are not really an organization that exists for the sake of its members - they're a mouthpiece for the gun industry itself, running huge FUD campaigns whenever gun industry profits are at risk. Most gun owners are smart enough to say "I don't want criminals or mentally unbalanced people to have guns" and support proposed laws that try to do so in a reasonable manner - the NRA leadership is not.

California had a psychological reporting system in check. A host of both medical and psychological professionals, including the ones issuing those drugs under such a system, could have flagged him to prevent him from purchasing a firearm. It was well within their ability, and within the duty you might say of their job.

They. Did. Nothing.

The guy was probably no more sane acting in the doctor's office than in that ranty video he made, probably much like the anti-Jewish guy, or like anyone who would have spoken to the Beltway Snipers, Cho, the Columbine assholes, or Hissan. The problem isn't the NRA blocking legislation about removing arms rights from the clearly insane*, it's that nobody pursues such blocking in the first place, I suspect because of threat of civil suits, malpractice, etc.

*A judge adjudicating you as nuts is a 50 state ban on firearms ownership as a person denied.

We use these kinds of 'checks' for a liability train when something bad happens, not to prevent something bad from happening in the first place. That's how our system works.

That's not a fucking solution, on top of a laundry list of non-solutions: "Waiting periods will stop this!" Someone cried, and then Cho bought two pistols, calmly waiting for the second before shooting up VTech with them. "Psychological checks will stop this!" The same laws that were already on the books and did nothing in the case of California here, and clearly did nothing when Fort Hood was shot up BY a 'mental health professional'. "Assault Weapons Bans Will Stop This!" Like the one on the books in CT before the sperglord killed the 6 year olds? The one his stolen weapons already complied to because ~gasp~ any gun can kill a 6 year old...

The truth is, you cannot predict the future, and while sensational and headline grabbing, you're much more likely to be shot over a simple mugging or stray gangland bullet, or even unjustly killed by a cop than die in a spree killing. They're statistical lightning bolts, and you cannot seriously flag out a whole sector of society without netting many many false positives, potentially making the problem worse.

Watch 'Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal', it may still be on netflix, basically the issue is not disenfranchising people firstly.

I'd say a more sensible response is to be prepared at an individual and institutional level for spree killers than to think you can pen a law that will poof away any possibility of spree killers.

Take me down to the Strawman City, where the poster is smug and his arguments shitty...

"I don't know how the kid acted, so I will presume he was crazy and nuts all of the time, rather than bother reading up to hear the reports that he acted rather normal when he was not intentionally making sensationally hateful videos and performing a murder-suicide."

So you're saying he acted normal when he wasn't acting nuts? Wow, color me shocked. Is that kind of like how Stalin was a pretty chill dude when he wasn't ordering whole families gulaged?

Oh, and better question, if the nutjob acted normal as pie other than the ranty video and the whole shooty/stabby business (gee, killed three of those guys with a knife no, maybe we need to regulate them), how the christfuck would you psych screen for him?

"Other people don't do their fucking job. That means you shouldn't do your job either. No, you can't work to partially alleviate the problem. Your efforts will either magically make it go away or do absolutely nothing, there's no middle ground, don't bother with it."

I posted this, people feeling loss of enfranchisement is a very common (albeit not complete) reason for spree killings along with other kinds of socially destructive behavior. Sometimes they're wrong about that, like this virgin, and sometimes they're varying degrees of correct. Victims often have nothing to do with the motives, as reality and power fantasy play out differently. In this case, about as many men were killed as women, despite a clear gender-motivation on the douche's part.

"Since you suggested something about gun control, I will presume you meant nothing but Congressional legislation, and presume that you supported other, far more retarded attempts at gun control, so I can make your point look considerably more ridiculous than it actually is."

Well what do you support there? You can bellyache about the NRA or lack of gun laws all day, but what I posted as examples were efforts to curb these specific kinds of events, and they didn't fucking work. Hell, even when everyone was faking polls for 'universal background checks' their rallying cry cases were ones where UBCs would NOT have made a difference, like Lanza (stolen, mother bought via FFL) or Cho, where he personally went through an FFL.

That's not even reaction legislation, it's just a jab at something for the sake of it. That's exactly why there is zero trust towards gun control outside of it's insular supporters.

Also, I mentioned Californian and Connecticut laws as well as federal, neither of which prevented their respective murder sprees.

Even a fairly sensible reaction piece of legislation to this...

And in California on Tuesday, two Assembly members proposed legislation that would create a gun violence restraining order that could be sought from a judge by law enforcement at the request of family members and friends.

"When someone is in crisis, the people closest to them are often the first to spot the warning signs, but almost nothing can now be done to get back their guns or prevent them from buying more," said Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, who sponsored the measure with Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara.

Currently, therapists can tell authorities when they fear a client is at risk of committing a violent act. However, there is no prohibition on firearms ownership unless someone has been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-law.....killing-spree/

Likely wouldn't have helped, because his manifesto was emailed mere hours before the killing. Sheriff's department did a welfare check on him a few months before... but nothing happened.

The reason why, most likely, was because nobody determined him enough of a threat to have him involuntarily committed. If he's not a present homicide/suicide danger, they won't, but that's a subjective view. If you're not concerned enough to go through the process of committing someone, why take their rights away? What legal basis is there for that?

Essentially, the processes that should work, don't because of the vagueness about such predictions, but rather than try to make those processes work, you want to set up another tier of vagueness based processes that do the exact same thing? I don't see that as a solution.

"Despite the fact there were mountains of publicly available evidence this kid wasn't to be trusted with a gun, it's perfectly acceptable for him to have been sold one because he hadn't hurt anybody yet.

You didn't do jack shit though, nobody did, but there was a law in place where many more people had the authority to make him a person denied in California than in most states. It was not utilized. That was a failure of the system, and reflects poorly on that law. Again though, this is 100% hindsight, we don't have these systems in place to prevent this shit, just to know where to point the finger when shit done gets fucked up.

Hell, were you not, just like three paragraphs above, saying I had no way of knowing how he acted towards psych professionals? Why would this suddenly be different? A single YT video being 'clear evidence'? In a sane world, terroristic threats or death threats would land him in criminal charges, that would remove those rights, buuuuuuut, let's be honest. Fucking nuts YT videos are common as dogshit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmmGR-jsk9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfqpha2zvG0

It makes for a good 'no shit' evidence in hindsight, but unless someone has tons of watchers who seriously report him en masse to the correct police department, there's too much white noise for anything to get done.

The only case I can think of like that would be where Buck Ang... er, James Yeager got his CCP revoked for a ranty roid-rage video on his channel, but that was a permit, a privilege, not a right.

In order to get a right revoked, you tend to need legal authority, a judge, evidence, and a sustained level of crazy or illegal acts that toss up red flags. Most spree shooters lack these, even if a handful of people say 'oh he's crazy'. Their first major crime is the killing spree.

Trying to precog out who will do this is nigh impossible. Too little sample size...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-sant.....le-to-predict/

See, if you ban CLEARLY FUCKING INSANE AND HATEFUL PEOPLE from buying guns, it's not fair unless you block everybody who you wouldn't trust to wash your dog, so we give them one free pass to commit a murder and then they've had enough."

He wasn't clearly insane until he started stabbing, shooting and BMWing people down. Most aren't, and the 'risk factors' are all over the place, a coherent profile isn't even available.

I'm so adverse to netting false positives simply because the US as a whole has historically done a fuckawful job of netting people with a lean towards false positives. Black guy in the North? Must be a fugitive slave! Arab with a pressure cooker? Must be a jihadist! Homeless vet on the street? Must be a nutter, lock him away in a disease ridden insane asylum! Caught with an ounce of pot? Throw him in prison for the maximum sentence!

Fuck if you let the powers to be control false-positive heavy screening every white male with too little sexy and too much Call of Duty under his belt will be in prison by sundown, and then we'll wonder why IT schools had their enrollment fall by 90% overnight. Hell actually, we tried this before, many many Jim Crow laws were about guns, trying to get them out of black hands specifically.

I don't see, even with all this hindsight, how this comes down to some clearcut case of warning signs and not just one charming psycho who can't be identified as such until turning psycho. Hell, he killed three guys with a knife. Even if you barred him from guns he'd have earned at least a triple homicide!

"Tons more people die to random muggings or corrupt / accidental cop violence than they do to serial murders so pfff who cares."

No, it's a case of averages and basic insurance. It's the reason your car has seatbelts and airbags for the highly likely event of a collision with another car, but lacks a meteorite shield.

I'm just pointing out that everyone rallies slogans like 'if it saves one life', but nobody gives a fuck about ten inner-city kids getting shot on ten different days. Four shot in one sitting though, and the media acts like it's something unheard of or somehow more relevant. Is there such a thing as one being more dead than another? One family more damaged than another? It's actually kind of asinine to only place value on death, and only when it's flashy and news-sexy.

"I'd say a more sensible approach is a portion included in what you were actually talking about, instead of my black-and-white, completely dishonest spin on what I'd like to think you were saying. I'd also like to reiterate that if you don't flawlessly stop every single bad guy buying a gun without any false positives your law is a COMPLETE FAILURE."

False positives disenfranchise innocent people. Disenfranchising people leads to spree killings. I see this as a counterproductive measure. If you can't come up with a more reliable system, why should I support it?

In life, very few are worthy of your trust, fewer still are worthy of seeing your soul laid bare in what many would call love. Caution wins the day, but not the war, though. To find love, you must be willing to go beyond the horizon, following an echo of a dream.

Thank you.

Spying over your love's shoulder as they type on the comp.
- Checking your love's cell phone
- Heavily monitoring someone via calls
- Forbidding your love to talk to people
- Enforcing "rules" that your love must follow

I love that so many boys and girls i know seem to think stuff like that is perfectly fine and normle and its not.

Checking someone's phone and emails is often the only way massive infidelity is brought to light though. These types of distrust aren't always unwarranted.

Sorry but no you have no right to invade someones privacy like that.There are other ways to find out someones cheating where you are not invading a persons personal space.And honestly that's the excuse i hear most men and woman who behave this way use.If you can't trust your partner then why are you dating them its time to rethink dating them if you can't trust that they are not cheationg on you.

>There are other ways to find out someones cheating where you are not invading a persons personal space.

Like having a private eye stalk them?

>If you can't trust your partner then why are you dating them

Because people like you make it out like they're the badguy for digging rather than the other person fucking up by being unfaithful. Can't both parties be wrong, and one in turn be a fuckton more wrong than the other?

Two wrong's do not make a right I never said the cheater was right or defended them also who needs a private eye just ask them and again if you don't feel you can trust them or they are telling the truth then thats not a very good relashinship now is it smart guy.Don't like my view son this then stop talking to me about it :)

Ask for a lie, get one and if it's a lie it's a shit relationship? Well duh, but how do you know without a third party or evidence? You can't exactly throw off a marriage or relationship on a hunch.

So instead you victimize someone you claim to love ok smart guy. Well I wish you well with your thoughts. And hope your life works out well. But I am done with this conversation with you.

If I could add one thing


[b]6) Love; True love is an eternal compromise[b]

When you find that someone who captures your hear, makes your stomach flutter, and realize you honestly ARE in love, you will quickly learn that no matter how compatible you are, you'll find you're both still very different. If you're honestly in love, you will come to love even the faults, and compromise [b]TOGETHER[b] on how to come to terms with it. It is always give and take, and the amount must be equal (impossible though it sounds). If not, then one of you needs to move on. FAST.

As Colonel Potter (Harry Morgan, rest his soul well) said. "You have two choices when someone drives you crazy that you love. You either stop loving them, or love them a whole lot more."


Otherwise Gun, this is why you and I ar elikely still single. We're adults. Not children looking fo ra ismple roll in the hay.

...Somewhere in that post, there's supposed to be a / before the [b]'s. S'what I get for typing when I first awake without Dr Pepper.

Wow.

1.) REAL LOVE has NO OBIGATIONS until MARRIAGE --- That's right. No matter how much you love someone, there is NO rule that says they are obligated to do ANYTHING for you... until you are married. Marriage is the only time where you make vows, and even then, they are meant for two people to support EACH OTHER (both do the work) and to their family.

I don't think it's that black and white, anedotely because this implies that until the 21st century, no homosexuals had 'REAL LOVE', and why the fuck would you marry someone who you have no gauge of commitment level from?

I think a major source of strife in relationships, possibly leading to the weird 'ownership' you see in some is mass imbalances of commitment levels.

Also leading off with "By now, you've all heard of the 22 year-old loser who got a rage boner when the girls he likes would not conform to his sexual interests." I wasn't sure if you meant this guy, some furry or Chrischan.

It' s only talking about the obligations of sustentation that the marriage institution was initially brought for, because there are too many jerkasses over the eras who would deny parentage and stuff. Those kind of obligatios have nothing to do with "Real Love" But with support of the family and stuff. Also, marriage has been used for centuries as a menas for secured sustenance, polliticall allegiances and other stuff. There are even some cultures that have clauses allowing infidelity because what has love to do with marriage anyway?
Our concept of the romantic marriage as evolved a lot since then, thanks god, and is the reason that marriage as a celebration of love can´t and shouldt be forbidden by any government, religious group or gathering of intolerant douchebags

Or the person likes to feel controlled, in which case, they both have problems... or they're completely normal by their standards. I personally would hate if I was dating someone who felt the need to look over my shoulder at every little thing I did. Either trust me, or gtfo of my life. Seriously, if people go and do that shit they're asking for the relationship to be over- plain and simple.

I remember this one girl I used to know... she had her her girl friends call her boyfriend at the time... had them try to flirt with him to see if he was going to be faithful. Last I heard from her, they broke up. I knew it would happen. He was a pretty chill guy, we used to play FF7 together, so it was a loooong time ago.

Sometimes people have been burned so badly that they think the only way they will be able to keep the relationship stable is by trying to control the hell out of it. It doesn't work in the long run cause people get smart, people mature, and people move on.

I am unsure if I shall regret more the existance of this douchey entitled sack of <expletives> whose video makes me want to punch him in the face and somehow makes all the bullies in the world be a little right (this is just meant as hiperbole)...
Or the bunch of creepies cheering him, saying that bitches got it coming, etc.

Seriously, is discouraging how many people need to read this and similar advice.