Two Absurdities

[ninboydean]

 One, "I can speculate on the AZ shooter's mental state, but you can't, and therefore he is not insane": http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/7527216.html

Short answer: sorry, but its simply not sane to do what Loughner did. And yes, being a sociopath is an issue of sanity, or a lack thereof. There is no justification to claim that he's

Comments

[underlankers]

1) Killing people is not a "good" thing to do, but plenty of sane people can and do kill people with quite regular "ordinary" motives. The concept of justifiable homicide, after all, does exist. He is, however, not a sociopath but a schizophrenic to judge by his writings which to me *do* have a lot in common with schizophrenic ramblings.

2) Clan mentalities imply that all people in a group can or will think alike. That's never how it works in the real world. Even in more "primitive" (i.e. kinship-based) societies.

[ninboydean]

But Loughner didn't simply kill people. He killed people without regard for any moral discretion (which I think is basically proven with the indiscriminate targeting, particularly the kid), which is good evidence of sociopathy. And sociopathy is insanity.

I agree that he seems schizophrenic - mostly because of his writings. But I don't think that's enough for a firm diagnosis.

[underlankers]

1) Or it could be evidence that he had a semi-automatic weapon with a large clip and didn't realize the things aren't that accurate and figured More Dakka is better? I mean a lot of people mistake quantity of firepower for being better than accurate stuff. Loughner sounds like just the type to make that mistake, be he schizo or socio.

2) Until there's something more firm, to me his writings are the best guide. He'll no doubt try for an insanity defense in the trial, which is what will be interesting.