We have to find a way to stop those whose symptoms have already presented themselves and shown an individual to be unfit to own a firearm due to mental incapacity. Several recent mass killings involved a shooter who had been, or was under professional care at the time of his crime. But mental health professionals don’t look at the issue of gun ownership for their patients unless it is in the context of whether they can determine if an individual would be a danger to himself or society. Would the Aurora, CO shooter James Holmes have been foiled if his therapist had erred on the side of caution and put his name in the federal database? We will never know.
Another problem not easily addressed is our attitude toward mental illness. There is still a stigma attached to being diagnosed and this discourages some individuals and families who might otherwise seek help before a tragedy occurs. Educating society about the disease of mental illness being something that could happen to anyone is an ongoing effort, and despite making progress over the previous couple of decades, there is still a long way to go.
If there is any reform that needs to happen as a result of this latest tragedy, it is in the level of awareness and perhaps a change in procedure for placing seriously ill patients in the database that would deny them the right to purchase firearms. This won’t deny them access to firearms — it appears the shooter in Connecticut got the guns from his mother — but it might prevent a future mass killing.
And stopping one madman from killing would be worth the effort.
Related: ‘Deinstitutionalization’: Mass Murder and Untreated Madness
HIPA medical privacy laws and limiting the mentally ill’s access to firearms work in against each other in this area. Unless the mentally ill have crossed into the judicial system for their illness, there is no way currently to catch them.
Capturing the mentally ill in a background check crosses that privacy line.
While it’s a worthwhile discussion, it as wise to tread carefully.
Historically enemies of communist and other totalitarian regimes have used diagnosis of mental illness to commit dissenters to “hospitals”.
Seconded. I was going to respond similarly. If you disagree with Secular Progressives, then you are likely to be branded mentally ill. It is the Secular Progressive version of infidel/unbeliever/heretic….based in their Scientismist worldview.
I’ve found that disagreeing with conservatives gets you branded as insane…
No, acting insane gets you branded insane.
Well, if you disagree with conservatives, you generally are insane. Progressives, by definition, are insane, so if you disagree with them you are, by definition, sane.
Next time try focusing on the actual arguments, reason, and logic.
So, it’s simply a matter of who puts who in the camps, then.
You folks are the designated ‘enemy of the people,’ now.
You know that, right?
You know where that always leads, correct?
The Dems own The White House, the DHS, TSA, the Senate, the DoD, The Pentagon, and pretty much all of the alpha-bits. Plus, they have the Supremes on a leash, of sorts.
You are the designated enemy of the state, in this scenario. In the real world. That’s the reality.
But, you still think this can be resolved peacefully…with your competent, wonderful, ethical, brave and courageous Republican leadership in D.C. showing you the way?
…and I’m crazy?
Yes, Warren, we’re all too aware of it. Why do you think so many of us are also private gun owners? We know what the 2nd Amendment was meant for – to protect us from our government if need be.
Do you want to stop it – get the guns out of the hands of liberals – check it out the large per cent of those who do these killings are liberal – socialist. Check it out – it is not the conservative republican doing this but the liberals who do most of these acts.
Great idea. Let’s put the people who can’t deliver the mail, and whose TSA bureaucrats who can’t tell whether or not a six year old has an Uzi on the outside of her without sexually assaulting her, in charge of discerning what’s on the insideof the minds of 300 million people who never have, and never will, shoot up a gun-free zone. If you think that has any possibility of working, you don’t get a gun, ’cause you’re already mentally ill.
It takes a special kind of servile stupidity to believe this is even worth discussing.
Americans are less likely to shoot up a school or other gun-free zone than they are to win the Powerball. It is not possible to develop a system to predict events with long odds like that. It. Is. Not. Possible.
The only people who can save children being shot up at school are, get this, the people in the school at the time. “Gun free zone” laws that disarm the only people who can save children from mass murders are immoral. The people who pass them are complicit in child-killing.
Exceptionally well said, Ms Worthington.
Unless someone has been institutionalized it is difficult to deny a person their right to legally own a firearm, once a background check is in order. And in a free country there are also prices citizens pay for freedom, even when things go tragically awry.And it is not as if this blogger hasn’t had her share of tragedy,so empathy is not in short supply.
However, the alternative is not an option. For if this becomes the new reality, (unless certified mentally ill) whose judgement call is it, unless a relative brings it to the authorities attention. Otherwise, does anyone in their right mind – no pun intended – trust those gunning for gun control to have a say over anyone’s mental health? I think not.
So, as a foretaste, DHS (via the Radical-in-Chief’s directive) ordered mama Janet to outline who the internal terror threats are. Guess what? ‘Teabaggers’ and Vets were her top priority; Islamists, within America, not so much – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/10/another-bullseye-painted-on-the-backs-of-u-s-military-vets-addendum-to-the-hunt-against-vets-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Huh and duh?
Wise words, as always, Adina. Please see my post further down. Keep up the excellent standard of work.
It’s my understanding that Israelis have effectively eliminated school shootings, by allowing teachers to be armed, and by having concerned and armed parents (nearly all of whom are trained in firearms handling during military service) accompany children on field trips.
John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime) has shown that jurisdictions with shall-issue CCW laws have a markedly reduced incidence of mass public shootings. Connecticut is a state that heavily regulates firearms, and limits CCW, while possession of firearms in or near a school is universally outlawed. This ensures that a malignancy such as this shooter will be unopposed, except by a courageous but unarmed woman trying to tackle him with no weapons. Even the fastest response by police will be ineffective, when the shooting is all over in 2-3 minutes. The only effective preventative is armed and courageous citizens on the scene, ready to run to the sounds of the guns, not cower under a desk.
My husband is a statistician and was doing some research on mass shootings this morning. CO, CT, CA and NY have had the most mass shootings with the worst death tolls. CT, CO and NY are three states that have even cracked down on the so-called “gunshow loophole.”
It seems that tougher laws only lead to easier targets and higher death tolls which may be merely a result of a false sense of security.
It is a fact though that this guy tried to buy a gun and the laws in CT stopped him. Of course, nothing stopped him from killing his mother and stealing her guns which only leads to the argument made for gun rights – only law abiding people will be prevented from having guns by any anti-gun laws.
It does seem that the criminals are keeping up their long-standing tradition of not obeying the Law. When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
Israeli teachers are not armed, and on field trips there may be an armed security guard purely in case of a terror attack. Guns are actually highly regulated in Israeli society. It is difficult to get a license and it must be renewed annually.
It is my understanding that a sizable portion of the Israeli population are reservists who have been issued and maintain their firearms at home. I realize they don’t “own” the weapons, however, they do possess them.
Given the large fraction of the Israeli civillian population that is armed, it cannot be that difficult.
Wouldn’t it be easier to ‘tag’ patients by their prescriptions to notify authorities if they tried to apply for firearms permit? Same when doing background check for parents or other adults living in a home with patient on psych drugs.
Until the 1970′s every state in the Union could involuntarily institutionalize schizophrenics. Letting them roam the streets is like letting Typhoid Mary run around free. The only reason that the laws were changed is because of a tragic misunderstanding that took place with the introduction of anti-psychotic drugs. The public at large and politicians believed that these drugs could cure schizophrenia like antibiotics can cure a bacterial infection. It was a bad mistake, fueled by ignorance, and we as a society have paid for it ever since.
Schizophrenics are a continual threat to themselves and everyone they know every single second they are free. They are very dangerous. Secondly, they are capable of making detailed plans and seeing them though. It has only been in the past 3 or 4 decades that they could not be institutionalized involuntarily that these incidents have occurred. They are a danger to themselves and everyone else and it is not benefit to society to allow them to roam free. It is a bad mistake.
The ACLU is one of the biggest offenders when trying to help the mentally ill.
Sounds good, but its wheel spinning.
Encouraged by people whose raison d’etre: journalists, power holding and lusting politicians who decide the “moral” is the way to go to succour/sucker people – OTHER people – when some “incident” provides the opportunity for them to grandstand. “Mental health professionals” who disagree almost on principle of what constitutes “mental illness”, and of course those who profit most from law upon law upon law lawyers. Legislators make laws.
Any wonder there are so many and wannabee lawyers in Congress, State and Federal? Statistically hardly a “representative of the people” body.
Any wonder there are so many laws on the books of lawyers? Takes the entire management out of the hands of citizens to be property of “experts” and “professionals”.
Have you not noticed there are many laws on the books, too many one might opine.
To the subject here how is it that so many criminals, known criminals, and gangs manage to get their hands on and use openly as many and kinds of guns for their territorial squabbles with the “occasional” drive by killing of people- those eternal victims women and children – in no way involved in their turf wars? Check how this occurs in states/localities with draconian gun laws.
Is it feasible enough people could get together in thie fractured nation to induce, even compel the represenatatives of the People to manage laws already codified are enforced?
Or is that of no interest whan sheep-dogging for even new laws that SOP are enforced arbitrarily according to whose ox is gored is so effortless, and rewarding in displaying their” concern” for the “little people”?
While it’s a worthwhile discussion, it as wise to tread carefully.
Historically enemies of communist and other totalitarian regimes have used diagnosis of mental illness to commit dissenters to “hospitals”.
IMHO,its far more important who is in charge and who is sending whom to the loony bin.
I will trust a conservative administration every time before I trust a clinton/obmaba administration.But, That’s just me.
If it’s a question of trust of the people in charge, we’re all in trouble. No matter what uniform they wear, what disguise they adopt, what they call themselves, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat.
With a Humpty Dumpty use of language – words meaning only what the user decides they mean – we would be well advised to remember an Italian adage: to trust is good, to distrust is better.
This has nothing to do with the CT event. He didn’t own the guns.
Exactly.
Rick Moran then asks if the Aurora, Colorado shooter could have been stopped if his therapist had entered his name into a federal database (to prevent him from purchasing a firearm). He says, “We will never know.” Yes, we do know –the answer is that he would have switched to different weapons. When the police entered his apartment they found the makings of explosives as well as at least one mortar round. Does Rick think that he obtained that mortar round from a gun shop?
In the meantime:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suffered a concussion earlier this week after she hit her head when she fainted because of dehydration from a stomach virus, a Clinton aide said today in a statement.
No ambulance was called and she was not hospitalized, according to a state department official.
She was expected to testify before Congress on Thursday at hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The Associated Press reported that her appearance has now been cancelled.
The State Department has not released further details on Clinton’s injury.
A delegation from congress should visit Hillary where ever she is hiding out and put her under oath. Then fire questions at her.
Guns don’t kill! It’s people with hands and opposable thumbs that kill.
I propose we cut the hands off all the mentally ill and dangerous folks.
It’s the only way to be sure.
I recall an old Marine Corps saying, Close Combat, One mind, any weapon.
Perhaps we can just cut off their minds with lobotomy.
Rick, the guy did not buy any weapon.
There is a lot of questions on where he got all the guns they have found in the school and in the car. Not all of them were his mother’s.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15926718-newtown-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifle-days-before-shooting?lite
“Adam Lanza, 20, went to a Dick’s Sporting Goods store in Danbury, Conn., on Tuesday to buy the weapon, but was turned down because he didn’t want to undergo a background check or abide by the state’s waiting period for gun sales, the officials said.
Still, Lanza was heavily armed when he forced his way into the school Friday morning – after killing his mother at their home in Newtown.”
Did this killer have a shrink? Did said shrink have an idea of how dangerous he was? Did he report it? Importantly, could he have reported it without opening himself up to a malpractice lawsuit?
If the shrink had reported it, would anyone have listened? Could they have done anything about it?
You can’t stop all of the mass shootings, but in this case the mother must have known her son had mental health issues, so she should have kept her guns locked up in a gun safe.
Heh. Pandora’s box was opened on this issue a long time ago. Keep anyone from getting a weapon if they want it? Not gonna happen.
Years ago, In SoCal, I could’ve walked to the corner, waited a bit, and bought a weapon, or made a deal for something a bit more…persuasive than a handgun. In hiTown, it was about the same,as long as you wren’t messing up any business the local ‘neighborhood association’ had on the back burner.
Other places, it was a local watering hole, with a different cast of characters. In a rural area it was a local redneck…or….in one case, it was a former SpecOps Vet.
You can’t keep people from getting what they want, need or desire. They’ll find a way…and often enough, they won’t have to go too far outta their way to find it.
Good point. The people who pull off these horrible one act tragedies are not ordinary folks going through some sort of crisis. They are usually fairly intelligent people who for some reason that no one can explain have reached the end of their existence and want to make it as big an event as they possibly can. There is no way to stop these people or identify them. If guns become too inconvenient they will find another way.
And the media will make a 24hr aday, 3-5 day circus of it. You wanna go out with a bang? The media will insure that every gory detail becomes public- while proving what a sensitive bunch of ghouls they are.
How can you design a screen between dangerous mental illness and buying a gun at gander mountain?
We do not have one.
There is just a drivers license and quick screen to legal database where I live. I had a thought which will never happen but might work. Maybe all of us could agree that a gun license should be no less difficult than a license to drive a car. From there a starting point could be developed.
I know, now government has database and control which many of us see as too much control over individual liberty. If my own “we the people” means anything at all I am too sickened about these repeated mass killings to just let things ride.
Your logic fails almost immediately as when the government licenses something, it ceases to be a right.
Already there has been a move to ban gun ownership for life for any vet who had any symptoms of PTSD.
That’s a dangerous road to go down, and remember the millions of WWI and WWII vets who had PTSD but still lived decent lives, owned guns, and never hurt another soul.
Far better to have a list of prohibited persons for real and justified cause than a wholesale prohibition unless permission is given by the almighty government to exercise a basic guaranteed constitutional right.
“How can you design a screen between dangerous mental illness and buying a gun at gander mountain?”
Did you read what Rick wrote? They’re supposed to be reported to NICS, which is the system that every dealer purchase has to go through for approval.
“If my own “we the people” means anything at all I am too sickened about these repeated mass killings to just let things ride.”
Yes, yes, your sense of outrage is more important than the natural right to self defense of everyone else in the country. Never mind that we let the dangerously insane run around free; PUNISH THE INNOCENT!!!
Had the therapist who treated the Virginia Tech shooter reported him to the Federal database (as required by law), he could not have bought his weapons legally. The Tucson shooter had a history of making death threats, and SHOULD have been given a mental evaluation, which would have put him on the database. That would have prevented HIM from buying HIS weapons legally. Why aren’t these people who violate these required standards prosecuted for their malfeasance?
Let’s face it: We need to stop everybody from doing everything.
I also have a big problem with mental illness. My main problem with it is that it doesn’t exist. It is a myth, and a metaphor, and it is a label used to stigmatize those who don’t conform.
Why isn’t there any room for the simple explanation that the gunman was not mentally ill at all; the perpetrator hated his life, hated his mother, and wanted to cause as much pain and suffering as possible for as many people as possible before and after his suicide.
Medicalization of social problems is anti-scientific and immoral.
see Szasz, Dr. Thomas – The Myth of Mental Illness
“it is a label used to stigmatize those who don’t conform”
How dare we stigmatize mass murderers and spree killers!
Homicide is a legal term.
Illness is a medical condition.
Making believe people commit illegal acts because they have medical illnesses that can not be scientifically identified is convenient but it is bad science and it leads to bad public policy.
The brain is an organ. The mind is not. A mental illness can only be a fiction in medical and scientific terms.
See Szasz, Dr. Thomas – The Manufacture of Madness
Yes, but mental illness that tends to violence can be reported- and contested- and utilized for reasonable limitations on rights, whether driving a car or owning a gun. The burden of proving risk is on the government, but so is the protection of the doctor reporting the threat. Current law provides neither protection for the doctor who reports a patient going over the edge, or a reasonable response to his report. Both require a judgement by the reporter and a carefully calibrated response by the government- neither of which our current society cares to be responsible for.
Gimme a break. Szasz and R.D. Laing were full of it and have long since been ignored. The idea that “society” makes people crazy and so, what? We should punish society when someone goes on a killing spree?
I say, “video games that feature killing should be banned!”
And, “paintball guns should be banned!”
And, “competitive sports should be banned!”
There’s no end to it.
Oh, and “automobiles should be banned!” 10′s of thousands of people are killed each year in car accidents. Nobody seems to get indignant about that. “We should make people ride public transportation.”
Life is dangerous. Some people are nuts, some careless, some intoxicated, some intoxicated by their beliefs, etc.
This just in:
fear of “mental illness experts” drove Lanza to kill:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/
Apparently you have never met a paanoid schizophrenic you didn’t like…..
Mary, Mary, quite the contrary, I’ve never met a paranoid schizophrenic. They don’t exist.
See Szasz, Dr. Thomas – Schizophrenia: Psychiatry’s Sacred Symbol
How about everyone on psychiatric drugs?
Suppose we stop all felons and insane people from buying firearms. How do you stop them from stealing firearms?
Hogwash. All of it.
Once you start down the slippery slope of defining who qualifies for the Second Amendment RIGHT and not PRIVILEGE, then all other RIGHTS as defined by the BILL OF RIGHTS are only granted because nobody in Obamee’s Politburo objects you having them.
They are no longer RIGHTS.
We’ve already given away most of the Bill of Rights to the American Politburo as it is. If we do so with the Second Amendment, then the Politburo will come in guns and take the rest by force.
History is replete with examples of this. Learn from them, and resist.
The Founders did.
Yes. And that’s the bottom line. Well said.
Articles like these make me think they were written on a napkin while watching Honeysuckle Divine at a strip club. Do we really need another bureaucracy for this? I use a simple empirical test. If in years past we did not have this problem, with the relative amount guns in citizen’s possession, why do we have it now? In other words, what changed from a society that had guns hanging over fireplaces, or on rifle racks in the back of pickups (when I was a boy in Texas), and many were left unlocked?
The only variable is that society, i.e., the culture changed. Back when families were a lot stronger and the source of moral guidance, there was a much clearer delineation of right and wrong-black and white distinctions, Post Modernism, Deconstructionism, Moral relativism, Grievance/Blame Culture hadn’t been invented, and public shame/harsh punishments were the rule. In the not to distant past, parents were allowed to really punish their children for transgressions.
Now ask yourself: are we better off today, with massive social engineering, adult children “experts” from academia dictating top down?
Americans have become a new species, Boobus Americanus. Never mind job outsourcing; Americants have outsourced their own thinking, decisions, and values a la Borg Collective to the Central Authority.
I have asked myself the same question. Guns were much easier to get many years ago but these mass killings did not occur. So something in the culture has changed. I would point to the violence in entertainment which has gotten vastly more gratuitous and graphic. Violent video games, which are marketed to young men, reward players for killing. Even Halloween has gotten much more gruesome. Now, by themselves, violent movies or games do NOT cause people to act out, but combined with a weak mind, it’s probably a significant contributor. It doesn’t help when the media continually loops the story 24/7 and gives other disturbed people the same idea for dealing with their problems.
Unfortunately, I think you are right. A society of adolescents is not well equipped to show good management of its problems.
First off, I love your username, haha! Second, I completely agree. Not that it’s this simple at all, but I hated getting spanked as a child, deplored it like any rational child, and sometime it bordered close to more than spanking. But as an adult in my early thirties, well I’m very grateful to my parents for doing so.
That and being extremely moral, good, Christian people. I’m not delusional enough to believe that if these murderers had been spanked (they very well might have been, or worse), that they wouldn’t do this, that’s just crazy. But I agree with your sentiment about how our culture has changed into something that cuddles children, and tells each and every one of them, that they are the most perfect child in existence, and they will get everything they want in life, and there are no consequences, as long as it feels good.
And I’m not even remotely speaking about this kid and this massacre. I don’t know this kid, his parents, his life, and it’s crazy to believe that I could have any idea what someone was thinking, if I never knew them, and they were that far gone. But my comment just coincides with the ongoing problem of taking God out of our society, promoting nothing containing values and decency, morals, and faith. And promoting all the sick things in our life, like it’s something to aspire to when you get older. I’m never for the government controlling pretty much anything.
I just wish that the people who spoke to our culture, and had sway with our kids, weren’t such greedy scumbags. I’m all for making whatever you want as a television show, to a point, but why is that people who now make shows only care about reality TV where people argue non-stop, and act like whores. I know that is only one small thing in a long line of problems, but to me personally, it just speaks to our values. I know at times like these, I get angry and look for answers, and shed some tears. But more than looking for answers, I believe it’s better if we all pray for the dead children, and ask God to take care of them, and pray for their families and friends, and as hard as it is, ask God to forgive the kid who killed all of these people, and to be with his family as well.
That’s just my two pennies.
Respect for God has noticeably declined in the last several decades.
We can rightly decry the culture and its impact on our children, but we have no immediate control of that except to the extent that we shield/prevent our younger children from consuming it. As they get older however, it becomes their choice.
The power we _do_ have, now, which does not rely on other people (the culture) changing, is to embrace God to the best of our ability and to continuously strive to embrace Him more fully throughout our daily life and over the years. In doing so we will do far more to change the culture and protect our children, even if they are adults, than by any other means. And we will find our purpose as a nice “side benefit”.
Couldn’t agree more. Thanks.
“The only variable is that society, i.e., the culture changed. Back when families were a lot stronger and the source of moral guidance, there was a much clearer delineation of right and wrong-black and white distinctions, Post Modernism, Deconstructionism, Moral relativism, Grievance/Blame Culture hadn’t been invented, and public shame/harsh punishments were the rule. In the not to distant past, parents were allowed to really punish their children for transgressions.
Now ask yourself: are we better off today, with massive social engineering, adult children “experts” from academia dictating top down?
Americans have become a new species, Boobus Americanus. Never mind job outsourcing; Americans have outsourced their own thinking, decisions, and values a la Borg Collective to the Central Authority.”
Laws, screenings, tests, waiting periods, et al did nothing and would do nothing to prevent the deaths of those 27 innocents. Why? He’s a criminal.
Murder is illegal. Didn’t stop him. Bringing guns onto school property is illegal. Didn’t stop him. Couldn’t purchase a firearm because he wouldn’t submit to a background check. Didn’t stop him. It appears he may have killed his mother and stolen her legally obtained guns. Governments can try and legislate and regulate this all away and as shown around the world where gun ownership is tightly controlled, it won’t stop a maniac. Laws and regulation didn’t stop Dahlmer, Bundy, Gacy, or the thousands of other psychopaths who have killed.
And these laws and controls AGAINST gun ownership fly in the face of the purpose for the 2nd Amendment. The right to defend ones self against someone who wishes to harm them or to use a gun for hunting is elemental; for the Founders to include a control against government for that would have been silly. It was meant as a regulation telling the government what it CAN’T do, so the people could defend themselves FROM GOVERNMENT. The moment we cede to government our right to resist their tyranny, we are but a sneeze away from it.
Mostly agree, but- of course- hunting had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it had to do with self defense and defense against a tyranical government.
One unrelated, to this post, point. Fox news is just now carrying on about the horrors of processing the crime scene. Insuring the facts is critically important. Graphing, microscopically, the crime scene, when the facts are well known, is masochistic. For the poor cops to track the path of every bullet, photograph every bloodstain, mark every expended cartridge, when the killer is dead, is useless, and extends the pain for no reason at all. It is a waste of resources, provides fodder to the media, and will traumitize the cops who have to do it.
I am not saying that this horror should be minimized, or that there should not be a thorough investigation. I’m saying that excessively detailed CSI type navel gazing is, well, excessive. But of course if you want excessive navel gazing, exquistly sensitive, well we’ve got the media for that.
I couldn’t agree more. We have the dead and the killer is not in doubt and dead as well. The Daily Mail UK has their pages splashed with every salacious detail in order to sway their American readers that gun control is far overdue and that we, As Americans, are insensitive and insane to think our 2nd Amendment trumps the lives of the poor babes whose lives were so cruely stolen.
I fear this incident, far more than others because of the ages of the innocent killed, will be the tipping point where our 2nd Amendment will end.
I’d be extremely leery of allowing bureaucrats to define anyone’s mental fitness. The rules can be changed with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.
This is a well known situation with armed professionals; the police and military. Most of them will not talk with a shrink, for fear of the punitive consequences. “Everything is just fine, thank you.” They have no choice but to suck up their pain and trauma. They would rather risk suicide than risk losing their careers.
I see no justification to expand this to the civilian world.
I’m glad you mentioned the military.
Because during the Cold War, the Air Force had considered this problem: How do they keep the occasional nutjob from launching nuclear missiles on his own say-so?
Yes, they had background checks and psychological profiles and security guards.
But they didn’t depend on that.
They made sure that no one airman could launch a nuclear weapon all by himself, no matter how much he tried.
In those famous ICBM silos, to launch an ICBM it took FOUR men to turn their keys simultaneously, two men in each of two physically separated control centers.
We could do the same thing with guns, and it wouldn’t hurt anyone’s gun rights.
Suppose a family of four buys guns for self-protection against home invaders. They could buy a specially designed gun safe with FOUR locks. It would require all four of the family to insert their keys into those locks at the same time to open the safe. Otherwise the safe won’t open.
That way, no one family member–or even two family members–can get those guns. It has to be a joint decision to unlock the safe by all four family members.
I know what you’re going to say: “That makes it too hard to access the guns! We need to be able to get to those guns at a moment’s notice!” If that’s what you want, then don’t be surprised if you’re the target someday yourself.
What makes sense for accessing nuclear weapons is total idiocy for handgun safety.
So if the home invaders grab/kill a family member, you now can’t open the safe. Or if one person is missing/at work/on a date/at school and somebody breaks in….brilliant idea, Sherlock.
If you are truly worried about a family member going nutjob on you, make sure you use a combination lock (or biometric) on your gunsafe.
Idiot.
You are displaying a clear example of irrational risk perception.
Where do you live, that you’re so fearful of being attacked in your own home at a moment’s notice?
I grew up in a poor welfare neighborhood in the South Bronx. I had more reason to be afraid than you did.
If you live in such a rotten neighborhood that it’s full of home invaders and other random attackers, why did you choose to live there?
Most of the gun enthusiasts seem to live in peaceful rural communities.
“Where do you live, that you’re so fearful of being attacked in your own home at a moment’s notice?”
Chicago? Detroit? Out in the middle of Outer Fumbuck county where you’ve seen a human’s shadow just once where you shouldn’t have? Where your neighbors got broken into last month?
You’re sounding like a particularly judgmental, low information person to me. You keep a weapon (or ten, or a hundred, as you please) the same way you keep fire extinguishers. Because you want to, and just in case.
And guns are defensively used 1 to 1.5 million times a year.
Myself I have eight firearms currently, and about ten fire extinguishers.
You see I like guns and literally play with fire, melting aluminum into new and interesting shapes, play with high power electronics, homebrew CNC machinery, brew beer, etc.
I’ve used firearms defensively in the sense of arming myself to check out noises around five times, and fire extinguishers twice.
And just to relieve the tedium of replying to the eloi, let me relate a tale quickly about one fire extinguisher use…
…boy howdy, do I ever not want to have to pull a stuck breaker out of the panel ever again (the kiln was too hot to get near, I’ve got it on a longer cord now).
BTW folks, if you have a breaker that trips in a nuisance fashion more than once and certainly twice, REPLACE that sucker. Aluminum made a high amperage short in the elements and the breaker didn’t clear…
I’m sure it was pretty from distance.
That’s funny. Wait…that IS supposed to be satire, right?
PLEASE tell me that was a joke.
Wouldn’t some vigorous and creative bullying have culled this killer out a long time ago?
Lanza was clearly a nut job and either because of or in spite of, his medications, he butchered 26 little kids. Shouldn’t the kids he grew up with have seen his mental defects long ago? Shouldn’t they have taken the traditional steps to emphasize, surface and address those defects long ago?
It can be argued that these 26 little kids are the victims of a political correctness position that claims that bullying has no purpose and is bad. Bullying may actually have a social benefit, identifying and marking nut jobs like this BEFORE they kill!
The two Columbine kids had been bullied.
They retaliated.
Did you see the result?
Bullying ain’t what it used to be! Now a little taunting or a put-down is considered bullying. Not so long ago, bullying left marks.
I was bullied and it left marks.
I retaliated anyway. I ambushed the bully and left marks on him.
Bullying is not a deterrent, it’s a provocation. And if you had kids who had been bullied, that’s exactly how you would react too: Hit the bullies back, twice as hard.
And “twice as hard” often means using a weapon.
As a person who was bullied as a kid, I disagree with that statement. I am no nutjob. The guy’s just a jerk marking his territory and I was dumb enough not to put my head down.
“Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?”
Of course not! Not even those ajudicated or diagnosed!
Far more people are ‘killed’ everyday by many other mens of ‘violent’ death that are killed by guns of any kinds.
With each of these kinds of isolated events comes the cry from special interests groups and their lobbyists against a constitutionally protected free society — and a constitutional protected right to own and bear arms.
The constitution is always under constant attack from special interest groups and their lobbyist from all sides of the political parties. Only their particular issues divide them.
How many rifled did he have? The police says that AR-15 was found in the car outside of school? The autopsy report says that children were shot with rifle. Did he go back to the car, left the rifle there, then returned to school and shot himself? Did he have two rifles? If yes, where did he get it from? Was he acting alone?
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15932666-newtown-victims-all-shot-multiple-times-with-rifle-chief-medical-officer-says#comments
The problem is we don’t know what we don’t know. Who can say when the next person is going to have a mental meltdown, for whatever reason?–daddy was a drunk, mommy was an uncaring hype, Susie wouldn’t give out some nookie, white folks are devils and deserved to die. Since we can’t identify all the walking wackos before the fact, that means we can only be armed before the predictable incidents. Walk softly and pack a few magazines with silver tips and practice good situational awareness.
This mentally ill individual wasn’t even of legal age to buy a guy in CT. You can’t make or enforce enough laws to prevent all crimes.
Why did his mother have all those guns? It’a not very sensible to have arms within easy reach of a person who has mental problems.
Why can’t we as a nation look at this issue as we do any disaster? Why can’t we prepare for it and train and practice for it? When I was a kid we had the nuclear bomb drills at least once a week. We knew we could never stop the bomb but we could at least prepare for it. We can do the same thing for any public institution by offering training to the people who work there who will be willing to be trained on how to oppose a deranged killer such as this nut job. The airlines have such a program and it is done on a voluntary basis with no extra pay for the pilots involved. If the trained people do not want to carry the weapons they are required to use then a safe at their location could be set up for their hand print or retina scan. We must prepare and not take away our freedoms because of mental deficients.
This shooting made me think about some material I ran into several years ago on how SSRI’s effect some people when they first begin taking them. An employee had started on them with very negative results.
It appears that a small percentage of people lose all control, and a number of mass shootings have been linked with beginning on these medications. I wonder if the recent shooters had started taking them.
One story I read several years ago was about an elderly man with no criminal record who held up the savings bank where he had an account with a five figure balance soon after starting on SSRI’s.
Numerous stories of whole families being wiped out are related to these drugs.
I think this is a huge problem that needs to be exposed. I think the big drug corporations are trying to keep lid on these stories and succeeding.
Here is a website with a lot of links. http://ssristories.com/ Here is another: http://alignlife.com/articles/depression/ssri-drugs-suicide-and-deception/ Here is a snip from it: A beloved sister on antidepressants tries to kill herself. A young teenager hangs herself four days after taking 100 milligrams of Zoloft. A young woman on antidepressants slashes her wrists, and another viciously mutilates herself. A father holds a photo of his 12 year old daughter because it is all that is left of her after her suicide eight weeks after being put on Paxil and Zoloft. Parents of a high school girl who had scored 1300 on her SATs before being prescribed an antidepressant drug had to pick out a cemetery plot instead of a university, following her suicide. Another father recalls his son telling him he could not stand the way the drugs were making him feel, and two days later he killed himself. A mother and father relive watching their child deliberately run into the path of a moving car.
A Google search on: SSRI suicide rage will bring up pages of this stuff. Uncontrollable rage is a result in a small number of people, and has led to them killing everyone in the house.
I am watching the predictable anti-gun hysteria, and wondering if any organization with a national following will ask if SSRI’s are involved.
It appears that the people who have serious problems with SSRI’s experience them within the first few weeks of beginning on them. I think the mall shooter was probably starting on them. He appears to be the sort of non-threatening person who suddenly changed. The school shooter may have started taking them as well.
Unfortunately, this idea is so un-politically correct that it is not even studied. A lot of information on the Internet seems to indicate that the whole class of SSRI’s do more harm than good, but without getting into that discussion, why not admit that they can cause incredible problems for some people and require close observation of those beginning on them.
I will also restate the obvious that more guns does equal fewer problems, not more, and that more widespread concealed carry would stop more of these situations. Why not end the insane gun free zones, which are actually free fire zones for crazy people, and pay teachers a bonus for getting training and carrying concealed.
This young man didn’t buy any guns.
His mom owned them.
Very simple, really:
If you own guns, and your consider yourself responsible, make sure that only YOU have access to those guns. Not your spouse or your kids or your neighbor or your parents. No one gets those guns without your express permission. Otherwise, someday you may find yourself being shot with your own gun by your spouse’s secret lover.
Remember, you had to pass a background check to get the guns. Not your family members.
And if you know for a fact that a member of your household is mentally ill, get rid of your guns altogether. If that person is manic or sociopathic, they will watch you like a hawk to find a way to get at those guns. Sooner or later they will find a way.
Security is one of those things we trade off on. I would love to push those 8 cylinders on the freeway Sunday early morning. The GT and I are perfectly safe. Then the flashing lights get you, whatever.
I am not outraged. I see a basic breakdown in security. In history the people will choose a more authoritarian leadership when that breaks down.
“Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?”
In a case like this? No way.
“Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?”
You mean, like, Democrats? Or in the larger sense of ending evil in the world? Either way, I’m afraid not.
But I do think that if you have a clearly mentally disturbed individual in your family home, you would do very well to keep your guns in a gun safe.
The trouble with liberals is that they want to take ultimate responsibility away from individuals and hand it over to the State. But that approach never has and never will work.
I saw an old rerun of Leave It To Beaver a long time ago. The older brother, Wally, had a decision to make about which high school to attend. He chose the one with the rifle team. We didn’t tend to have school shootings when the schools had rifle teams.
Liberal Democrats will soon be blaming this on “easy-to-acquire” guns, conservative opposition to gay marriage, the rich not paying their fair share, and eventually, George W. Bush.
Thumbs down on denying gun ownership due to an “insanity” label. The perp who murdered the school children was (according to some reports) diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome (a form of autism.) Asperger’s is not “insanity” but a developmental disability. (Let’s not confuse a mental disability with a classic mental illness, such as some form of psychosis. If a person has been institutionalized and is deemed “dangerous” to himself or others, then obviously he should be unable to acquire weapons. But let’s not get carried away here.)
Ever heard of MAKING A TOOL? If all the guns, weapons were collected up, no longer manufactured, I could make any number of weapons in an afternoon that would kill whatever I wanted to.. Being ‘mentally ill’ does not preclude your not having the skills and intelligence to make TOOLS (humans vs animals?).. What next, ban the possession of METAL? Wood? Plastics?
Then what, ROCKS? Anyone that goes down this road of banning guns is an idiot and of a low IQ.. in other words YOU should be banned from leaving your room.
I particularly appreciate the Youtube video with the guy building a an AK47 out of a pre-existing barrel (bore out an axle for a homebrew), a shovel, and bolt, well for the bolt. The only part that would be really tricky was the trigger group, but it’s not that hard to file parts out of other hardware.
The murders in Oklahoma City were done with a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel. The 9/11 terrorists used box-cutters on airplanes. Do we outlaw everything?
Even police states still have mass murders happen.
Exactly! To say nothing of the numerous kinds of small exposives and noxious gas weapons one can make with a few commonly available household chemicals that are freely available at any grocery or department store. Do we outlaw all of those now, too?
A few steps away, out in my workshop, I have the equipment, the materials, and the means necessary to build a functioning firearm. Are we going to ban machine tools, lathes, mills, unimats, steel and hardware too?
so, the left wants to truthfully discuss guns, crazy people and gun control.
i say sure. the first discussion we should have, should start at the top. agreed? good.
1. why did your president feel the need to sell untagged guns amd ammo in bulk to the mexican drug cartels?
2. when it all went south, why did holder & co. do everything possible to hide what happened?
3. if it was no big deal why the extensive coverup, hiding witnesses, promtions/transfers and not allowing same to testify, and making continuous delays in testifying before congress?
4. if there was no wrong doing, why did the president claim executive privilege to stop the investigation?
5. how are these actions by this administration in mexico related to the u.n. small arms treaty awaiting ratification in congress?
6. everybody does understand that executive privilege is not meant to be a ‘get out of jail free’ card , right? it is meant to stop the release of information that might compromise national security, not provide cover for illegal, murderous activities against American citizens.
7. how many people have actually been killed (to date) by these guns? for some strange reason, the numbers stopped increasing once our prez. got involved.
8. what did the sale of guns to killers/terrorists in the m.e. by this administration have top do with what happened in benghazi?
bet hitlery knows something about all these things. got dizzy and hit her head, huh? yeah, isn’t that what battered spouses say all the time when they are covering for somebody? irony?
yeah, so let’s have an honest discussion about guns. no problem. as long as it is all ‘under oath’ and everybody involved/implicated gets to testify. sure let’s discuss guns.
btw, to me, selling thousands of untagged guns to mexican drug cartel mass murderers, then running away, hiding evidence and not testifing to the truth, fits the definitions of mental illness, criminal activity and cowardice.
so, when do these so called ‘honest discussions’ begin? probably after the inaugration huh? yeah, they want your guns, just not for the reasons being played.
Liberals and Truth. About anything?
The big ol’ elephant in the room is this:
Any of us ‘saners’ could turn ‘nutz’ given the right amount of stress hormones and the right circumstances.
‘Crazy’ can’t be regulated.
Try. I double dog dare ya.
A true story:
In addition to other talents, I hold an FFL. Which means I can sell firearms, but only in a manner proscribed by law. I sold a handgun to a Viet Nam vet. He passed the NICS background check. Due to his having car problems I went and picked him up, transferred the gun in a legal manner and I took him back to his home. Stopping along the way to pick up a few items at the grocery store before taking him home I put the gun in the trunk of my car. Secured. He did his shopping and we went to his place. His wife then told me that he bought the gun to ‘use’ on her. Then told me he had been held for mental evaluation at one point in his life. Argument ensured between the guy and his wife. I kept the gun in the trunk, secured.
This vet then decided *he* needed to know if he could legally own a firearm. So… the two of us went to the Sheriff’s office, local city police and the hospital where he was seeing a *therapist* for stress related issues. We… WE offered to pay for a background check from the LEOs… they said they would not run a check, even when we explained the situation FULLY. We then went over to the hospital where he was a patient. He wanted to ask a doctor if he was able to own a firearm. The Dr. we saw refused to answer any questions, called an armed security guard to sit and watch us. The Dr. refused to answer a specific question concerning mental health issues that the patient asked.
After having tried to determine the status of this vet, and failing, I was left with only one course of action. I turned to him and said he could have the gun. The Feds said he could, the LEOs said if the Feds OKed the transfer he could own…. the Dr. was a worthless pile of fecal matter… I said he could have the gun. He then declined to take possession. He was leaving the state in a few days and told me to sell the gun and keep the money, as he had put me through enough trouble. I offered to give him his money back, but he would not… NOT take it. Said he didn’t want his wife to have it. Damn… this guy was the most soft spoken person I had run across in years. He was not on any meds. I asked. No reason he should not have taken possession of the gun. He wanted to know if he could legally own a firearm. Turns out he was held for three days after he asked a Dr. what he thought about suicide. He asked after sitting in a waiting room watching a TV program on suicide. Told me the hospital he was being held in, after three days, released him and called a limo to drive him 80 miles back home. No explanation, nothing. Just a free limo ride home.
Well, a three day ‘hold’ is an exemption and was not a reason to withhold a transfer. The LEOs told me that… like I didn’t know it, like it is not printed on the transfer forms that need to be filled out. That day I learned something… The vet was the only sane person I was dealing with. The others, lazy, paranoid, liars, incompetent…. Ask the government for help! Nope not even when it concerns firearms transfers. If you go outside their little box-like world, forget it. No help at all.
For those asking for more government gun control… you are laughable idiots. I’ve seen the government and medical community in action, up close, in person. It is a matter of convenience for them if they act or not. For the government the ultimate convenience is to say ‘No.’ If they say anything at all. And that is what gun control is all about. The government and gun control freaks want to make it more convenient and easy to simply say ‘No.’ No matter what the constitution and settled law says.
Maybe the government should print the ten commandments on the 4473s. Highlighting that one about ‘thou shalt do no murder.’
Perhaps to cut them a little slack, the privacy laws in this country are so confusing the VTech people couldn’t even decide whether they were allowed to identify their shooter as a student in the heat of the moment. Anybody who zigs when they ought to have zagged on a privacy issue, especially anybody covered by HIPPA, is likely to get sued. Better to send you on your way with no info — not their problem.
Keep well in mind that to most people on the left, anyone on the right is assumed to be mentally ill, to begin with.
They have the ‘scientific’ research to prove it, too.
Look at the language being used by the left, especially after this tragedy. These are not isolated cases. Website after website. Blog after blog. Newscast after newscast. Headline after headline, column after column. You are being demonized. You are the ones who’ve been determined to be mentally ill.
The question they’re asking? “How do we keep guns outta the hands of the mentally ill?”
In dictatorships and tyrannies, especialy those which are socialist and communist in nature, what happens to people whom the state has declared to be ‘mentally ill’?
It is irony, indeed, to see the question being asked, today, on a right wing website. The juxtaposition between this article and what your opponents are saying about you, and what they have said about your own sanity in the past, is very profound.
Given that the new DSM will consider just about everyone mentally ill, great care should be taken trying to keep “guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.” Like the federal law code, they could find some way now to declare you crazy.
The people advocating on behalf of the mentally ill have done too good a job. They are a protected species but the rest of us are not.
I think my two cents is worth at least writing down.
Here goes.
The number one reason we have people with mental disorders that harm others in society is this. And it has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
The pundits (TV and print) don’t realize it. And the psychiatrists, the PhD psychologists and sociologists, for some reason, don’t like talking about it.
What’s more, like the pundits, the general public is too damn dumb; or if you’d prefer, too uneducated to realize it. In the main, only U.S. senators and representatives have good mental health care coverage plans. The rest of the country is cursed with a policy of mental health coverage neglect. The result:
Less than 10% of the U.S. population has enough money to pay for adequate out-patient therapy for youngsters with significant mental disorders.
At $120.00 for a typical forty-five minute therapy session, the entire middle class can’t afford to provide care for their mentally ill children. Don’t let anybody fool you, parents know when they have a sick child on their hands, but few families can afford the money it costs to get them well. Your typical parents are sick about this. And live in fear the older, the strong and the madder their child gets.
Yet, hardly any health insurance in this country covers more than twelve out-patient office visits to a therapist. That’s one a month. The parents pay about thirty-five dollars per visit. Which is okay as far as it goes. It’s okay for a child with mild problems that aren’t getting worse.
However, the child on a collision course with mass killing like the one in Newtown, Ct. would need a visit a week to deal with his problems, most of which could be resolved with 3 – 5 years of out-patient counseling. Often, the parents and other family members require counseling, too. Which can really add up.
With typical company-offered insurance, that amounts to a minimum of seventeen thousand dollars over say four years to take the anger out of a youngster’s mind, and save the lives of countless innocent people. Since most can’t afford it, and the President and Congress won’t take action to fix it, this coverage problem goes untreated.
If you think ObamaCare is going to address this need, I’ll have to see it to believe it.
One more thing.
I know of what I speak because I was one of those children. One of the lucky ones because my parents were wealthy. As a family, we paid for tens of thousands of dollars of therapy. I lost my anger and fears. And never killed anyone.
The fact that I still love guns hurts no one. I own none.
The problem with that, peepers, is that there is no effective treatment for schizophrenia. It cannot be treated with therapy. It is absolutely incurable. The most profound psychotic episodes associated with it can be ameliorated with anti-psychotic drugs but unless the sufferer is locked up and under supervision he will simply not take the drugs. They must be institutionalized and institutions for them were provided by every state in the union prior to the 1970′s. There is not treatment, there is no cure. As long as they are free they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
There is no need for legislation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. What is needed is to return to sanity with regard to the treatment of the mentally ill. Most of these crimes are perpetrated by schizophrenics. Schizophrenia is a young persons disease. Its old name was dimentia praecox, meaning ‘youthful madness’ and has been known about for a very long time. Prior to the early 1970′s these youths would have been involuntarily institutionalized.
It was the political misunderstanding resulting from the introduction of anti-psychotic drugs in the 1960′s that led to a ‘liberation’ movement that reasoned that since the disorder could be treated with drugs that involuntary institutionalization amounted to false imprisonment. Most of the outrages that have transpired since then can be traced to this catastrophic misunderstanding.
For those who do not know, here are some basic facts. Schizophrenia cannot be cured. The drugs that treat the symptoms of profound psychotic episodes are not cures and the schizophrenic is continually deluded even if not bizarrely delusional. Furthermore, even if the drugs can treat the most profound symptoms they can only do so if the patient takes them. If they are not institutionalized and the drugs are not administered against their will sufferers will simply not take them. Extreme paranoia is a symptom of the disorder and it is naive in the extreme to believe that a person with the disorder will take any medicine that has be prescribed on their own. They believe the whole world is plotting against them and, consequently, are unlikely to take any drug voluntarily.
Paranoid schizophrenics are very dangerous. They are capable of making intricate plans and carrying them out. But they are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and are not morally responsible for them. These incidents could be cut to near zero by simply reinstating the laws regarding the mentally ill that kept them off the streets prior to the ridiculous laws now in effect. Make no mistake about it, keeping guns out of their hands will not solve the problem because this kid could easily have built a bomb. He could have blown up a bridge.
We do not have a gun problem. We have had a catastrophic legal and political lapse born of ignorance. Until governments have the right to involuntarily institutionalize paranoid schizophrenics, no one is safe. It is like letting an Ebola virus carrier run free on the streets.
Laws don’t keep crooks from getting guns. Sumdood may be crazy but that doesn’t mean that he’s stupid–or anywhere near obviously “troubled” or possibly legally insane.
A rational view from a long-time cop in Illinois:
“The answer is to institutionalize these people. Of course we closed most of our mental institutions in the mid 1980s so we don’t have the bed space anymore.
I can tell you from first hand experience that our jails are full of mentally ill people who get no no mental health care while they are incarcerated. Even after you get the court to declare someone mentally incompetent to stand trial, the wait for a bed can be six months or longer. The judges here have taken to subpoenaing the directors of the various state run mental hospitals in rule to show cause hearings as to why they should not be held in civil contempt for not accepting these patients after the court remands them to their custody. The institution usually comes up with a bed as soon as my deputies serve the subpoena.
The mental health system in this country pretty much consists of doctors of all specialties prescribing the latest in psychotropic drugs to patients with little to no followup. Patients who are unable to handle basic care for themselves are released to the streets or their families to supervise these medications.
The lesson we should learn from these mass shootings is that what is left of our mental health system in this country is horribly broken. I don’t look for anything to change because it’s terribly expensive to care for these people and as the economy collapses governments at all levels are looking to get out of the mental health business so that the money can be spent in other social programs.”
Not directly applicable to this particular tragedy, but certainly indicative of the overall problem.
Not to harp about violent media that some of us can read and watch then go our way, but, these people’s focus and internalization is very intense which does suggest to me that, yes, definetly, a deficit exist. But are these people sociopaths and psychopaths? I know many people with various mental illnesses who would rather hurt themselves than others and are law abiding.
My concern in controlling this problem is that we remember that before the 1950′s all mentally ill people were locked up in santitariums. It was with new medicine in the 1950′s that helped many leave the sanitariums and function in everyday society. The only reason I bring this up is our current government. We all know how the mentally ill have been treated in history.
Psychotropics, psychotropics… will the media please stop ignoring the true elephant in the in all these cases, the one real difference between the US & the rest of the world. Every society has loonies, but our pharma industry & psychologists have created monsters with these dangerous drugs…please let’s start rethinking giving these psychotropic drugs to our kids, please…
Rusty, you are right and I make the same point in comment #42
Not just to our kids. To everyone.
Listen to the drug commercials. At the end they list all the possible side-effects. Some of them list ‘thoughts of suicide’. These drugs are DANGEROUS!
These mass killings 30 years ago didn’t happen because young people were not being given serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRI drugs. These SSRIs are implicated in over 95% of the mass killings in the US. Search the web for SSRI violence. The problem is the the media will cast it as a gun problem and implicitly cover for the medical industry, and deadbeats like Obama want to override the second amendment.
The Constitution doesn’t strictly define arms. Some would make the argument that the modern equivalent to Minuteman arms would now be that which an infantry unit could carry into battle.
What sort of Revolutionary era restrictions on activity or liberty were imposed on “mentally ill”.
Could a state define “Militia” to mean every person owning or possessing a weapon?
Could the state then require each owner to fulfill some training requirements including psychological vetting similar to “attitude” questions on driving license exams, or more in-depth screening?
What is the total number of deaths from the Obama gun deals with the drug cartels? IIRC, it must be approaching two orders of magnitude greater than the recent mass murder. When will the Pres. and his party demand all guns be removed from Federal agents? Janet Reno is still uncharged after Waco.
A lot of numbers are tossed around, I am curious as to how many of the “gun deaths” in the U S this year involved drug transactions or users or gang members. Why do we not see a massive PR blitz to eliminate the gangs ?
We have nearly two generations with a majority holding the carefully inculcated
attitude that firearms are evil, and that anyone possessing such a weapon must by definition be insane. There will be no stability until this changes. Even leftists surely remember maOZedong’s LRB baseline description of the seat of power.
I would be interested in learning about any histories of specific gun control laws, customs, or Parliamentary strictures in the Colonial era, and in the Revolutionary and Confederation era.
Considering the Founders’ dislike for standing armies, the Second Amendment seems IMHO to indicate that Militias would be the fighting forces first into action, and that would indicate that individuals should be able to have infantry weapons, if a member of a State militia.
Does anyone have sources about the extent and mandate of requirements for citizens storing powder or bullets in a common facility in Revolutionary times?
GBUSA
Its funny but we havent had any massacres since 1996 when the Australian government banned semi automatic weapons and assault rifles. We had a few prior to that. But not one since. And our left and right dont see it as an issue.
Yes, and OZ IS NOT a free country. What are you gonna do when the Chinese come for you?
America will not be able to save your bacon this time.
This should really make your day:
It emerged today Lanza’s mother — who was also killed in the spree — was a gun nut who took her troubled son to shooting ranges. [!!!]
“She’d take them to the range a lot. … Nancy was an enthusiast — so much so that she wanted to pass it on to her kids,” said her former landscaper, and occasional drinking buddy, Dan Holmes.
“She took her two sons to the gun ranges quite a bit to practice their aim. [!!!]
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/victims_found_horrific_connecticut_jNTUicqZejDtIdc6G24mUJ
So here’s a mom who knew her son was disturbed–and yet she *taught* him how to fire powerful guns and how to aim. And of course, the guns he used in his attack were hers.
We can’t pass legislation against stupidity.
Except that none of those are particularly “powerful” weapons. The two handguns were 9mm, considered by most to be about the minimum caliber for a personal defense handgun. The Bushmaster, the ugly, scary, black rifle the ignorant lefty reporters are describing as an “assault weapon” is .223 caliber and has nothing like the knockdown power of any sedate-looking .30 caliber hunting rifle; it’s just scary and black thus “TactiCool” looking. It is almost never mentioned in the hysterical reporting that the Bushmaster was found in the trunk of the car and wasn’t used in the shooting. The ignorant urban lefty reporters are also prattling about how the two handguns can shoot five or six rounds per second; that’s 300 – 360 rounds per minute and only belt-fed automatic weapons can do that. Magazine fed automatic weapons can sustain that or even a higher rate of fire for a few seconds, but magazine capacity is limited to usually 20 – 40 rounds and the magazine must be changed every few seconds, a time consuming process even for the well-trained and experienced. Oh, and none of the subject weapons had the most important “powerful” feature; they can’t pull their own triggers.
These guns are a lot more powerful than using your fists.
Any one of them can kill a human being instantly.
Which is in fact the point of having them.
We don’t have to chase down game and club it.
And, oh, the important part…
…the weak are not at the mercy of the strong, nor the peasants to whims of the knightly class.
My Uncle was a Psych with an MD. He worked with the criminally insane beginning in the 60s. He put a lot of people away or kept them locked up in prison as dangers to society. And he was always armed with a pistol. A big strong man, he was nearly killed one night when a patient of his, a small man, managed to get into his home and ambushed him. That fight destroyed much of the house. He said that most of these people were ticking time bombs with no hope until they got into their 40s. He felt it was better for the patients to fixate on him rather than on others. He lived in fear but was proud of the many, many lives he saved by putting these people away.
In this case, Adam Lanza, there is something wrong with that family. The brother who had not gone home in four years. A dad who ditched his wife and youngest son. A wife who was a doomsday prepper who spent all her time caring for her youngest son. The youngest son full of mental issues with a rigid mother? And I wonder what trauma Adam had at the school? Was Adam not allowed his feelings no matter how psychotic?
Of course, left/liberals will just consider conservatives and/or anyone who wants a gun to be “mentally ill”… ta-dah, gun problem solved!
Could have been Play station or X box addicted.
Bottom line.
If you can’t play nice with your toys somebody will take your toys and put them where you can’t get them.
And for a small fee someone else will return them. You cannot put toothpaste back in the tube. Or unscrew the pooch.
Why would we expect yet more gun control to stop or prevent mass murders, and school shootings in particular?
Germany’s gun laws are already considerably tighter than our own, and were tightened further after a previous school shooting in Erfurt in 2002. Yet, none of those gun-control laws prevented another school shooting that claimed 16 dead and 11 wounded seven years later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
No. We cannot even agree on what mentally ill is. Back in the day, Social deviancy was the accepted theory. That went on the fact that certain behavior was only demonstrated by a small (2% or less was the cutoff) percentage of the population.
I wasn’t interested in Psychology, considering it barely at the ‘junk science’ level. I’m not sure what the current theories are. Still junk science.
IMHO, anybody that voted for Bronco Obama is deranged and needs to be kept away from sharp objects much less firearms.
This is besides the point anyway. Nobody on the left cares about those murdered children. The left just wants to use the horror invoked to further their agenda. Why shouldn’t the right behave the same way?
20 children murdered by gunfire. How many were murdered by abortion in Conn. that day?
Dead is dead. Why is the media focused on the shooter instead of the Doctor?
The Solution is to split the Union. Let those that want to murder children live in their ‘America’. Let those of us that think ALL life is precious have our own America.
TWANLOC: Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen
The framing of this issue, by linking mass murders to mentally ill people, is misleading. If all murders, using a gun, are classified I would not be surprised if most are committed by people who are clearly not mentally ill.
The media sensationalize the killing of 28, mostly small children at an USA school, but have considerably less to say about similar numbers and even higher killed on most days in Syria. Many of these are women, children and the elderly. Those who kill them are their own people and are not mentally ill. This goes on month after month.
You may object saying this is a civil war and this happens in a war situation. But how would you explain a situation like that in South Africa where around 350 000 have been murdered (official government statistics) since Nelson Mandela and the ANC government took control of the government after a “democratic election”? Strict gun laws have not prevented many being killed with illegal or stolen guns and many more with other instruments like knives. In fact the murder rate during the bad old apartheid days in the fifties and sixties was far lower.
I am not in the least surprised by the killing of many people in mass murders, civil or tribal wars, or the many single cases of murder in certain democratic countries. What surprises me is why sometimes and in certain countries there is a far lower murder rate. I believe that human nature is messed up and we are all inclined to do things that hurt others, even those closest to us. I believe that Jesus exposed the problem when he said that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” No government can solve the “heart” problem because no government can legislate morality – the best they can do is to take “reasonable measures” to protect and just measures to prosecute murderers as people who are accountable for their actions and not allow many to get off through a plea of insanity.
Both western governments and the liberal mindset, that writes off Christianity and the teachings of Jesus as some sort of primitive superstition, will never be able to understand the mass killings at Sandy Hook Primary. They are flawed in their understanding of human nature – they falsely believe we are all inherently good – and consequently unable to address both the reality of and the consequences stemming from our fallen or messed up human nature. Our understanding of so-called “mindless killings” is directly determined by our views on human nature and the Judeo-Christian commandments.
Instead of clamoring for gun control, the best response for people who want to channel their sorrow about the Newtown, CT tragedy into something useful is helping develop/promote sensible mental health policies, helping the victims’ family financially, and prayer.
………..Can We Keep Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill?
wrong QUESTION Rick.
you are falling for the trap set by the alinsky liberal batsh!t folks who bing you maxism via obamacare.
you are in effect accepting that the right to bear arms and defend yourself is somehow part of the problem. it isn’t stop giving fodder to the enemy.
liberalism is the problem. PERIOD. start addressing that.
After getting a divorce, Mom turns into a gun nut. Then she teaches her mentally disturbed son to be an expert marksman by taking to the range to fire high-powered assault weapons.
I think the root cause of this awful event can be gleaned from those facts right there.
The mom was an angry b*ch. Who teaches their very disturbed son how to shoot guns and leave them unlocked around the house?
And it comes complete with a “Twilight Zone” twist ending.
This mom becomes a gun nut after a divorce, she teaches her disturbed son how to fire guns and how to practice his aim.
So he kills her.
she was probably hoping he’d shoot her ex husband. maybe even dropped a few subtle suggestions? you never know.
There are more facts, and insight, in this article and replies than all the Sunday morning talk shows and MSM. But there is an enormous amount we do not know. Example. The coroner states that the victims were hit repeatedly with a .223, a high velocity military rifle round, an M 16 variant, Sauer or Bushmaster, which would inflict massive damage on a child. Others report the weapons used were hand guns. The terminal ballistics (body wounds) are totally different. If we debate regulating weapons, we should know what we are talking about.
But vastly more important is the mental state of the shooters, in all the recent slaughters. We never read of their home life, except in tidbits. Insane people typically exhibit aberrant behavior in the late teens. What were the family environments which nurtured them? Did the families attend church regularly? Did dad spend time with the boys? Did the family have regular talks, about life, respect and caring for others, at the dinner table? Was there any overview of the free time, what is watched on their computer games? What was their after school social activities?
All seem to be loners. After the horror, many acquaintances (not friends) state that they expected some thing like this. None acted beforehand. Why not?
It was reported that the murdered mom was active in gun collection and use. All of the weapons were stolen from her. Were any locked up? Was there any effort by mom or dad to get this kid into psychiatric help? Involved with church? Did a cop talk to him, about anger management? A shrink? Any adult, who saw it coming?
We should debate what to do with crazy people, who exhibit violent tendencies. And table gun regulation. One problem, noted here, is that many Americans do not trust the psychiatric profession, apparently with reasonable cause. Many others do not trust the governments to keep us safe. One statement which I have never heard stated to the murdering nut while alive, “If you attempt to kill anyone, I will use lethal force to stop you. If I must, I will kill you.” Would a nut comprehend this? Deter him? What do you do with a teen, at this point?
Let’s assume that we can have as much success keeping guns from the mentally ill as from the criminally evil. Then what?
Our choices then include our own disarmament in a vain but misguided belief that our purity will protect us; or in staying vigilant and armed and prepared to defend ourselves, our family, and our charges from the brute violence that can crash upon us with the suddenness of a thunder-clap.
In the first choice, only randomness can protect us. In the second, we have a chance to argue against blind statistics and move the bell curve just a little bit more in the direction of our survival.
Should we come face to face with murderous insanity or criminality, in the first case we have a very high likelihood of dying at the hand of the madman — as does the madman. In the second case we have a fighting chance of surviving the encounter and robbing the madman of his chance to take both our lives and his own. Statistically, though, either way somebody is going to die.
I’d like a hand in choosing who.
That would include 100% of demorats, 100% of their commie friends and transvestite parents.. Then there is the union bosses, totally mentally ill.. What the hell do you want people to say here? No one reads this stuff and takes away anything of value. Blah splat foop drivel skitz would have more meaning than to read anything out of the minds of the mentally ill, which I know declare is about 99% of the united states residents. Think that’s baloney words? Just look at the psychotic drugs taken every day, the metamucil drank by the gallon, this pill that pill, my tummy hurts then my rear end hurts then my brain hurts and I don’t want to go to work but I can’t stand it at home around my insane family and my parents are loosing their minds and the dog crapped on the bed again and.. This country is f-ing nuts.. and so you wonder why there isn’t more of this in all 50 states every goddamn day.?
What many people don’t realize is that antidepressants have black box suicide warnings for teens and young adults (which should be expanded to include adults and violence). A great number of people who have killed themselves and/or committed vicious crimes were taking antidepressants at the time.
The neo-neo-nazism among authors here at PJM is astounding.
I wrote the following about the push for universal permanent institutionalization by authors and commenters across the ever more sickening “conservative” blogosphere (including Dr Helen, Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and many others). However, once the principle is established, it applies equally well to the restriction of GOD-GIVEN rights for certain segments of the population deemed subhuman by the elite intelligentsia.
First, though, you gotta love this quote “keep firearms out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.”
Right, forget about potential, we’ve got some actively dangerous people writing, recommending, and commenting on articles at PJM.
Here’s the long & short of it.
Schizophrenia is the mental illness most commonly associated with violence.
Out of 100 schizophrenics. 8 of them will commit a violent crime.
Out of 100 perfectly “normal” people. 5 of them will commit a violent crime.
Thus, the association of schizophrenia or other mental illness, with violent crime is FALSE. It is believed by many, based on the SPOTLIGHT fallacy.
Hypothetically (assuming 100 to be the total number), if you permanently confined all schizophrenics, you would sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT to prevent 8 violent crimes.
By the same token, if you permanently confined all “sane” people, you would sentence 95 innocent people to Life imprisonment, to prevent 5 violent crimes.
Your justification for the PERMANENT IMPRISONMENT OF 92 INNOCENT people, is those THREE additional crimes prevented. And you call the schizophrenics “crazy”?!
So, to prevent 8 violent crimes, all you have to do is sentence 92 innocent people to LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE; WITHOUT TRIAL; WITHOUT APPEAL; WITHOUT DEFENSE; WITHOUT CHARGE.
Why not, then, prevent ALL violent crime by putting everyone in prison? (after all, everybody knows there’s no violence IN prison)
What’s that? You don’t want to confine ALL schizophrenics? Just the one’s with “violent tendencies”? Such as assault?
Aren’t they already confined when they commit a crime?
You’re not talking about schizophrenics with a history of ACTUAL violence. Such violence is ALREADY criminal. ALREADY requires confinement. (p.s. just in case you don’t know, violent THREATS are criminal …. tortious, too.)
By “violent tendencies”, you mean non-violent acts and speech indicative of violent thought. How many “sane” people say “violent” things? How many have ranted and raved when angry? How many do it, DAILY, on the internet? How many “sane” people have ever taken out their anger on an inanimate object? Are they given LIFE in prison? Should they be?
What is being advocated is the permanent confinement for Schizophrenics who SAY (but don’t DO) “violent” things, but not for “sane” people who do the same.
Things are not improved by reliance on the post hoc and circular argument that someone is “crazy” BECAUSE they committed a certain crime. This type of argument is FALLACIOUS. That is, the entire premise of the argument to confine the mentally ill to prevent more “Newtown’s” is logically flawed.
Still, “spotlighting” certain events, and begging the question after the fact will convince many “sane” people to agree to permanently confine the mentally ill. If their support for permanently confining the mentally ill is based on faulty logic; then it is — by definition — IRRATIONAL.
Now who’s crazy?
Nevertheless, “SOMETHING MUST be done”, right?
Well, let me add that there is a much stronger correlation between schizophrenia and violence when substance abuse is added to the mix.
Additionally, there is a very strong correlation between “sane” people and violence when substance abuse is involved.
I have a solution which is more consistent with both fact and logic than the permanent confinement of all mentally ill persons.
Permanently confine everyone who EVER drinks alcohol or uses any “recreational” drug. That’s right, LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE; WITHOUT TRIAL; WITHOUT APPEAL; WITHOUT DEFENSE; WITHOUT CHARGE.
(No, I’m not serious; it’s a valid reductio. But even as a serious argument, it’s sounder than your’s.)
There is a crime in this country — and THIS country particularly — that is worse than all others. Worse than murder. Worse than rape. It is the imprisonment, by the State, of an innocent man.
And you propose to do it multiple times over, in perpetuity.
Frankly, even if 99 of 100 schizophrenics committed violent crimes; what you suggest would still be evil, as it would permanently imprison one innocent man.
NOTE: I didn’t even broach the subject of race as it relates to percentage of violent crime committed; but you should be aware that if this illogical and EVIL argument succeeds, it will set the precedent — logically, and INEVITABLY — for the imprisonment of all black people. This is why there is a VALID Slippery Slope argument to be made against this push to “Institutionalize”. Go on, say it. Say, “That could never happen here”.
I have a cousin with schizophrenia, and he’s as harmless as human beings come. Far less dangeroust han most allegedly “sane” people I’ve met.
God help the person who comes to imprison my cousin (or sends a goon to do it for them), because I’ll be there with him … waiting for you.
If a jury says your too nuts to be let out among sane people, then to an asylum you should go, and if for violence, for life.
That’s perfectly just and constitutional. A broken mind is nothing you can count on every healing or not cracking again.
That’s the reality you should deal with.
Or maybe you can’t.
And you’re crazy.
1. Under Obama’s proposal he would not be allowed to have a gun because he qualifies as a sociopath according to the DSm criteria. Click on it and see for yourself. A pathological liar, thief, baby killer and sex pervertand a megalomniac to boot, he should have been locked up long ago.
2. There are many ways of obtaining guns other than purchasing them. In this case Mom let Sonny have access to guns while simultaneously trying to have him committed to a Funny Farm.
3. Our Constitution permits us to keep and bear arms in order to have a trained militia. Military arms are highpowered and high capacity- exactly those the ignoramus in the White House wants to ban.
4. Murder is a moral problem. Instilling moral values in our children will reduce amorality in general and killing in particular.