Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Disarming America is not the solution to gun violence. It would be virtually impossible to confiscate every weapon in our country, and criminals will get guns no matter what. What we are doing, with all of the talk and action about gun control, is disarming the good guys. This is a mistake. We should be going in the opposite direction — making it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons. There would be fewer mass shootings if deranged individuals believe there is a possibility that someone would be shooting back.
Federal law prohibits possession or acquisition of guns by persons with "adjudicated mental defects." Seung-Hui Cho, Jared Loughner, James Holmes were KNOWN mentally ill. Our mental illness health care delivery and reporting system is broken.
Adam Lanza was severely mentally ill and unstable. Adam Lanza was a known walking time bomb. The mother had told others that she was losing him and yet the the mental health system failed to enforce the existing laws.
Sandy Hook once again shows America has lost its moral compass. Our mental health system and legal system is broken with no means to deal with the mentally ill.
----
----
Deranged psychotic people aid by federal and state privacy laws are allowed to walk freely amongst us and we can not even legally provide them with the help they must have.
Vulnerable mentally ill can now anonymously act out their festering rage in social media, kill people in video games, and feel the realism in violent movies - with no repercussion. Because society does not correct them they do not feel pain or empathy and progress down a dark path.
Hollywood producer Quentin Tarantino preemptively came out immediately after the Newtown shooting to claim his sadistic violent movies do not contribute to the societal culture today.
These mentally ill individuals are further immersed everyday in a society which has lost its personal values. In our liberal secular dependency society individuals are not taught responsibility and have lost perspective of right and wrong. Underaged teens get birth control without parental supervision, marijuana drug laws are not being enforced, nudity is widespread on TV, rampant play of toxic violent video games, denigration of religious is being systematically promoted in schools, and the deranged individuals with severe mental issues can not be legally helped.
My comment to the above letter applies here. First things first: Mourning and grieving for the lost and prayers for the strength and comfort of their friends and family. Then, move on to the next steps.
CarmineD
Future makes excellent points that badly need to be made. Societies voice will be heard loudly about access to guns and that is legitimate, but as usual, it is an 'easy' response to a 'complex' issue.
Much more difficult to accomplish than an assault weapons ban would be an effort to address the problems in our society that help create people like Adam Lanza and then tie our hands in doing anything about such people until after something very bad happens.
Michael
In reply to Roger Witcher; yes, it would be wrong to disarm the "good guys".
However, to state that, "There would be fewer mass shootings if deranged individuals believe there is a possibility that someone would be shooting back", is totally absurd.
There is far too much talk of banning guns again. What discussions that should be taking place is banning many differing types of antidepressant and or psychotropic drugs. Not all, but many of these type drugs frequently cause a patient, for a variety of possible causes to "pull the trigger", and or reach for a knife, scissors, a hammer, or anything else they happen to have access to as a weapon.
We need to take a very close look at the victims statements who have survived mass-shooting incidents. All descriptions of recent deranged shooters have had a good bit in common when in the commission of their crimes; "no countenance, said nothing, and did not care who they shot or who died. All were wearing black." In the aftermath of each recent rampage, the shooter was described by people who knew of them, as shy, intelligent, and somewhat, if not a total loner.
In all my years of working in prisons with a large contingent of the mentally ill, I only have a basic knowledge of psychotropic's and antidepressants. But, here is what I do know.
Mood stabilizers, or psychotropic's, are medications that are given to those patients who have attitude or temperament disorders. These are a group of psychiatric medications that affect the mood of a person, usually given to those who have bipolar and manic disorders. In other words, these type of medications calm the patient down.
On the other hand, anti-depressants are another group of psychiatric drugs that improve a person from sociological withdrawals. Therefore, these drugs improve a person's mood, and tends to help relieve hopelessness within an individual because it focuses on solely depression episodes.
Other than in a prison setting here is the psychological weapon that we as a society hand to these mentally ill patients. There is no absolute and or controlled setting to ensure that their medication is continued on schedule. Lapses in both psychotropic and antidepressant medications have proven time and again to have fatal consequences in some form to society.
Secondly, what most people do not understand is that when someone is given a psychotropic and or a antidepressant, it appears to "help" because of the signs they are going in the opposite direction while medicated. Those on psychotropic's go into a shell of sorts, those on antidepressants many times become boisterous, outgoing and talkative.
In most cases this is all good. But, with either psychotropic's and or antidepressants, let a gap in being medicated or a total discontinuation without a physician occur, and trouble with a lot of violence is certainly on the horizon for our society. We need solutions and actions NOW!
"There would be fewer mass shootings if deranged individuals believe there is a possibility that someone would be shooting back."
The writer apparently has little understanding of the word "deranged". Every week someone somewhere decides to have a shootout with people they KNOW are armed - trained police officers. In many cases as in Newtown, the criminal ends up committing suicide. The trick may be how to keep people with a self-destructive purpose from first taking others with them.
Bradley: how do you know it's "absurd?" We almost always hear about those with a screw loose who do damage with a gun, but rarely is attention given to the times when having a weapon results in a positive outcome. That's not news, according to the "Main Stream Media" who funnel only what bolsters their agenda du jur. That moron of a mayor, Michael Bloomberg, gathered 34 victims of gunplay to bolster his demand for "gun control." Any one believe he couldn't have found 34 others whose life, limb and/or property weren't saved by having a defensive weapon at their disposal? Remember, Bloomberg is the same guy who worked to ban soft drinks larger than 16 oz in size. He's a whacko and typical of so many nutty politicians everywhere in this country.
There are plenty of "good guys" on psychiatric medication who are not in prison. Their condition is controlled on drugs and they are all around us. There are others that should be on medication. These people aren't in prison, never have been.
So the issue is one of not making it legal for them to own guns. They can progress into more serious degrees of their conditions.
Sufficient waiting periods could be established to allow for appropriate tracing of psychiatric histories and medications. No weapon should be placed in their hands legally until all appropriate records have been researched.
This can be facilitated by the electronic medical records data base in the future, which could shorten the process.
Perhaps this is something that needs to be researched on an every 5 year basis and registration renewal denied if the results are positive.
By the way, bipolar disorder, previously called manic-depressive disorder, is thought to be an inherited disorder in some cases.
The letter writer makes a case that wholly does not exist, then criticizes the non-existent case. I have heard zero talk of disarming anyone. I have heard zero talk of confiscation.
What I have heard is stopping the sale of semi automatic weapons with large clips, or sometimes just the large clips. Those are the common denominators in this mass killings. To ban these is appropriate, there main use is solely to mow down as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. Then, we have tears, and need time, when they do exactly as intended.
The solution is incremental, it will not solve 100% of the problem, but that is not a reason not to do it. The letter writers argument is: since stop signs don't stop everyone, then stop signs shouldn't be used. I will gladly accept incremental results, and so would any parent of a murdered child.
As for the deterant argument, nothing could be more laughable than that. These shooter, think movie theatre, show up in bullet proof vests, helmets, etc. they fully expect return fire. It does not deter. We live in a country with more armed people than any other nation on earth, it does not deter.
Personally I'm sick of hearing the same, tired, rhetoric from the gun crowd each time. Meanwhile lots of funerals are going on.
"PeaceLily"; the term "prison" was utilized to illustrate a controlled environment for dispensing both psychotropic and anti-depressants, where control, even in this prison environment sometimes falls through the cracks with severe consequences.
Your nursing background, "PeaceLily" could provide us excellent suggestions in how these dangerous prescribed drugs can be controlled when consumed by mental health patients in a free society. I have no real suggestions or answers there.
However, I do have credible knowledge that a significant portion of even violent domestic disputes have an associated cause of misuse and or an unauthorized lapse or discontinuation of these psychotropic and antidepressant drugs that do in fact trigger episodes of rage.
I never said there weren't plenty of good people who are responsible that are on psychiatric medication. They are not the ones society is concerned about. It's the others such as all the recent mass-shooters that should give us great concern to find solutions and put them into action.
I was at a sporting event in Dallas called the Bayou Classic many years back. This is an annual football game between Grambling State of Louisiana and Prairie View A&M in Texas.
The Cotton Bowl is located in South Dallas in the Fair Park area. This area was known for its heavy gang activity at the time.
Halfway through the 3rd quarter, bullets started flying. Who was doing the shooting. When the bullet rolled and burned my leg, I knew it was time to go.
Pandemonium followed. My ex-wife in tow crying while we ran for our lives.
If I had a gun, I might have been confused with one of shooters. The gang bangers didn't care. The police didn't stop to ask questions as they were rushing in.
They were looking to stop the threat.
In that moment of panic, I realized the helplessness of my situation. Any one with a gun was a potential shooter or an innocent person trying to defend themselves.
If I had pulled a gun, who would I shoot? What if someone had seen my with the gun? I might have been shot by accident. Makes no difference, I just as dead.
The answer isn't more guns, or taking guns away from people.
It' simple.
If you own a gun, you must carry liability insurance. To buy ammunition, you must provide proof of insurance. All firearms must be registered.
All this takes is common sense and political courage.
Jerry, deranged gunman with histories of mental illness does not feel pain during their acts of rage. Therefore, they do not consider consequences.
These type gunman / mass-shooters are like an animal going into the final stages of rabies. They have lost their minds of any possible reasoning.
This is precisely why many mass-shooters with mental illness histories commit suicide right after their attacks. The inner-rage they are enduring in their head is many times like a "mind tsunami". By them committing suicide they are relieving their own inner-pain.
A good portion of police shootings are now related to what is called "Cop Suicide". In other words, instead of a deranged man killing himself, he pulls a gun on police and basically has it done for him.
Finally, these types have no sanity whatsoever in their state of mind to think of consequences.
CreatedEQL poignantly identifies, "The letter writer makes a case that wholly does not exist, then criticizes the non-existent case. I have heard zero talk of disarming anyone. I have heard zero talk of confiscation."
Totally agree. And this idiocy always needs to be pointed out. Because it does not contribute anything to solving this incredible problem faced in America right now.
Very hard to talk to pro-gun lobbyists or anyone from the NRA.
Mainly because they live on another world. All they see is an attack on their good thing.
Pro-gun lobbyists, especially the NRA, are not specifically pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment. They are ONLY pro-gun manufacturer. This really needs to come to light in discussions from now on. The perception is wrong.
They want EVERYONE in America armed and dangerous. They want to sell guns. Period. Whatever consequences that causes? They don't care.
That's why a discussion needs to ensue with our politicians and other experts after this senseless violence in CT. And it needs to happen without pro-gun lobbyists in the room.
It really needs to also be pointed out that in the last election the NRA pro-gun lobby, especially pertaining to politics, is not that powerful. They only showed a .16 percent success rate of the politicians they backed. This is way, way less than one percent. That's even worse that Karl Rove's dirty money success rate (he showed one percent success for every $109 million spent).
Also, the NRA pro-gun lobby aligns perfectly ONLY with ultra-conservatives. This last election, they spent over $5 million on Tea/Republican Party candidates, and over $11 million attacking Democratic Party candidates. And the result was the same. A success rate that was more abysmal than able to achieve anything.
People need to wake up and understand the NRA pro-gun lobby does not possess the power everyone think it has.
But if you do give them the benefit of the doubt with their over-the-top braggadacio, whatever power they think they possess needs to diminish fast. And it can. People need to rise up. Don't leave it to people who only want to sell guns to represent you, and speak for you. They are using you.
America can't afford to listen to them. Because bodies will pile up with more and more mindless carnage like what happened in Connecticut.
We have enough regulations in regards to guns and weapons. What is and has been sadly lacking in the United States, is the effective funding and support for Mental Health.
If the psychotic individual bent on killing or harming can't access a gun, they will find another way to be destructive, as there are plenty of alternatives.
Blessings and Peace,
Star
Fortunately for Mr. Witcher the conversation that we seek is not about "disarming" America. Rather it is about setting policy which will promote regulation of firearms ownership....licensing, limits of type, etc.,...consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The conservative majority of SCOTUS has already endorsed that approach, holding the government interest in regulation is constitutional.
Sadly Mr. Witcher is all too typical of the NRA extremists. When confronted with reasoned regulation they scream disarmament, fly the "cold dead fingers" argument, hold out the UN bogeyman....anything to deflect the argument.
So let me be the extreme voice from the other side. The NRA is complicit in terrorism against the American people. Its purchase, through political contributions, of laws which weaken government ability to control and regulate tools which are used in mass murder of Americans makes it an enabler of terrorism. Its financial profit from that enabling makes it and its leadership reprehensible,
Page 4B in today's RJ has three interesting stories. One identifies the man who killed a woman at Excalibur the other night before killing himself. Another reports a gunman was shot and killed by Tribal Police at Moapa Travel Plaza off I-15 at the Valley of Fire exit. Another reports the arrest of a man who fired at Metro officers and missed. They arrested him after they returned fire but missed too. Elsewhere in the paper is a story relating that two Kansas law enforcemnent officers were shot and killed and the shooter later located and killed in a shootout with police.
Just another slow news day, I suppose, or are we just getting hardened to this stuff.
What I meant to say to Jerry Fink was these types of deranged gunman with these "mental illness rages" do not feel pain from outside variables. They can be shot multiple times by police and will never feel it. They can only feel the furor of rage that is exploding inside their mind that drives them to total insanity.
There is a strong connection that this type of "rage behavior" is brought on and or triggered in many cases by psychotropic and antidepressant medications that have not been used or properly controlled.
For decades the NRA and its gun lobby has worked tirelessly to create a sense of paranoia, the kind of government-hating, fear-mongering that was so effective on the Newtown shooter's mother. After President Obama's reelection Nancy Lanza became completely unhinged, expecting a civil war. She had trained her creepy son in the use of a military-style assault weapon, Bushmaster's M4A3 rifle, the slaughter machine of choice used for many bloody massacres in recent years.
Nutty mom and creepy son were not so different from many others on the right who believe the black helicopters are coming any day now.
In his original letter, Roger states that "There would be fewer mass shootings if deranged individuals believe there is a possibility that someone would be shooting back."
Can anyone provide a documented instance of an armed private citizen using a personal weapon to halt or prevent a mass shooting? Just asking - I've not been able to find one.
Today, the California State Teachers Retirement System showed the Big Gun industry what a bazooka looks like. It wasn't decrying gun violence. It didn't point out that fifty round clips were bad for business. It didn't sue for damages. No, it simply pulled it's money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50234921/ns/...
"The California State Teachers Retirment System informed Cerebus, the owner of Bushmaster that it divest itself of Bushmaster, or, CalSTRS would divest itself from Cerebus. That potential exodus of $751M+ dollars is enough to make investment firms re-think their investments."
***
Good news. Cerebus has put the makers of the AmBushmaster up for sale and there's nothing NRA (No Responsibility Assoc) bullies can do about it.
Who has the impossible job of identifying the "good guys"? Nancy Lanza was a good guy.
@ renorobert, there are no private citizens to date who have stopped any mass murderers. I would ask if any of them would have the cajones to stand up to someone wearing full body armor while firing an AR-15 with a 50 round clip and plenty of backup clips.
"Can anyone provide a documented instance of an armed private citizen using a personal weapon to halt or prevent a mass shooting? Just asking - I've not been able to find one."
Nope. In fact, the Gabby Gifford shooting nearly involved a second tragedy. One of the people who responded to the attack was carrying a concealed weapon and very nearly shot the heroic bystander who had just tackled and disarmed Jared Loughner.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...
@renorobert....I would think that someone who wears body armor anticipates return fire and has prepared for it. That seems to negate the "fear of return fire" argument.
Governor Rick Perry pontificated this AM about that, suggesting that teachers and principals be armed. Having watched the Governor's performance in the Republican primary debates we already recognize that he is an idiot. His comments merely reinforce the delusional thinking of many members of the gun nut club.
"What we are doing, with all of the talk and action about gun control, is disarming the good guys. This is a mistake."
Witcher -- excellent letter, but unfortunately to be drowned out as the herd bleats for a bigger, badder police state.
"...the conversation that we seek is not about "disarming" America. Rather it is about setting policy which will promote regulation of firearms ownership....licensing, limits of type, etc.,...consistent with the 2nd Amendment. The conservative majority of SCOTUS has already endorsed that approach, holding the government interest in regulation is constitutional."
wharfrat -- you're wrong about "the 2nd Amendment" and "SCOTUS." The U.S. Supremes' recent, landmark decisions in both Heller and McDonald they recognized this is mainly a local matter to set policy, not Congress. That means our state legislatures and to a lesser extent municipalities. The U.S. Constitution did not empower the feds to rule this country exclusively, the fifty sovereign states do most of that. Yet it's the feds most are looking to for crushing our freedoms in the name of safety. Again.
"Page 4B in today's RJ has three interesting stories....."
pisces -- another good post! Especially about the local stories. I would have mentioned that report of 30+ Ohio cops murdering two unarmed people sitting in their car @ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
"There is a strong connection that this type of "rage behavior" is brought on and or triggered in many cases by psychotropic and antidepressant medications that have not been used or properly controlled."
BChap -- or someone who has nothing left to lose. Like another victim of injustice, like a dad cut out of his kids' lives while the rest of the world parades happy families looking forward to xmas.
"If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/w...
Shooting back to stop a mass killer is a myth. Very few have the requisite skills to hit a moving target. The availability of body armor is another hindrance.
The US military fired so many rounds in Iraq and Afghanistan they ran out of ammo and had to import more. 250,000 rounds for every assailant hit.
"What I meant to say to Jerry Fink was these types of deranged gunman with these "mental illness rages" do not feel pain from outside variables. They can be shot multiple times by police and will never feel it. They can only feel the furor of rage that is exploding inside their mind that drives them to total insanity." And your PHD in mental health is from where? You received your medical degree from where? @BChap
<<Sufficient waiting periods could be established to allow for appropriate tracing of psychiatric histories and medications. No weapon should be placed in their hands legally until all appropriate records have been researched.
This can be facilitated by the electronic medical records data base in the future, which could shorten the process>>
There DEFINITELY needs to be a much more thorough screening process of those wanting to buy guns. People will scream that obtaining medical records is a violation of their privacy, but is it? In most States, if an elderly person is renewing their driver's license, they are required to bring a document from their doctor stating the medications that person is on. If some meds could cause the person to pass out or become disoriented, no license. So why can't the same procedure be done for those wanting to obtain guns? Some smoking cessation drugs cause iratic behavior.
Contrary to what the letter writer is saying, no one wants to disarm the good guys but why in the hell does ANYONE need an assault rifle?? THAT is what should be banned: Assault weapons, not your hunting rifle or your 9mm Glock.
4 billion prescriptions a year are written with big pharma keeping track of where every prescribed drug is going. Keeping track of a few million gun sales a year should be child's play.
We are living in the computer age. Wall street keeps track of BILLIONS of transactions a day.
The anti government types live in constant fear of the marines walking through the front door. They want to accumulate vast arsenals for the Apocalypse and keep it on the down low.
Years ago I attended a course,"Hate groups in the US". Hundreds of thousands of people with pictures of Hitler and Auschwitz on the walls. Vast amounts of guns, ammo and explosives. Dreaming about the day when they can start killing everyone that doesn't have white skin.
If you want something to worry about this is it. These idiots are all over. I was a policeman when one of these guys shot up a Jewish school in the San Fernando Valley shooting young children. I lived in Sherman Oaks at the time, a few blocks away. Now many Jewish schools in LA have armed guards. A sorry state to say the least!
Mr. Witcher,
Regulating the sale of weapons IS NOT disarming the public! Removing high capacity assault weapons from the market IS NOT disarming the public! Having background checks for sales over the internet or at gun shows IS NOT disarming the public! Trying to teach our younsters not to use violence and or bullying to solve our problems is not disarming the public.
We live in a culture and society that assumes little responsibility for their actions and it's about damn time people understood they created this environment with the bitterness they exude. These last few years have brought the worst out of mean spirited people because they lost the elections and airing hate over networks does nothing but agitate mindless buffoons who don't realize these people are paid to lie to their audiences.
This problem we have as a society goes far beyond guns, but we must start somewhere, and getting rid of assault weapons that were designed to kill is a good one.
Mr. Witcher is a typical uneducated man who somehow still thinks we are living in the days of the wild west and the OK Corral. Does he honestly believe the framers of the constitution forsaw assault weapons and rapid fire huge cartridge cases? The world changes and intelligent people change with it. There is no reason a "good" man needs any guns in todays world. I would allow no more ownership than two registered hunting rifles per person. And NO handguns. Does anyone honestly believe we are in danger of government tyranny? Or a police state/military dictatorship? Both are ridiculous assumptions with no basis or chance of any reality. In addition, no one ever held up a 7-11 with a hunting rifle nor has much chance to kill multiple people. We live in a nation of far too many crazies, and Mr. Witcher is evidently one of them.
I'm with Vernos...
The majority of American citizens are fed up with the NRA & folks like the letter-writer who fear the 'evil government' is coming any day to their doors to steal their guns. No one with an ounce of sense believes that.
The majority of American citizens are in favor of stricter controls on the sale & purchase of guns; specifically assault weapons.
The majority of American citizens have had it up to here with the tired, egocentric, outmoded mantra of 'MY 2nd ammendment rights'.
The majority of American citizens could care less if you have to have a waiting period & pass a background check in order to obtain guns & ammo; INCLUDING FROM GUN SHOWS.
It's high time to reinstate the ban on assault weapons in the good ol' USA.
And, yes...
We need to address the dearth of Mental Health services available to those that desperately need it.
Unfortunately, the OPPOSITE is happenning.
We have enough problems finding good teachers today, yet some of you idiots want teachers to arm themselves! You, like Mr. Witcher, are all nuts and a big part of the major problem with our country today. Those who go into teaching are educated and hopefuuly learned scholars, men and women of peace. They are modeled after Confucius, Socrates, Plato and the great teachers of history. They are NOT modeled after Wyatt, Butch or Sundance. Virtually no one would go into teaching if they had to arm themselves to do so. As a retired teacher, I certainly wouldn't have done so. And how many children would die in the crossfire and so-called "friendly fire?" Try thinking before writing.
In reply to "ByTick" from "All Comments"; I have no real degree on paper to speak of, however I do have a degree in experience and taking some definite calculated risks.
There was back in the late 80's an inmate mental health patient named Leland G. He was just over seven feet tall, and was a walking pharmacy on psychotropic's and had the strength of an army when he "went off". Sometimes it took a large group of both officers and even inmates on occasion to get Leland restrained. However, on this one evening, this was not going to happen. While on exercise in the rotunda, Leland "went off". On this night I did something highly unusual. While Leland was in the midst of his rage, and while I was secured in the control center, I obtained the phone number of Leland's mother. I called and told her what was taking place. I opened the steel flap and yelled at Leland until he finally recognized that his mother was on the phone and wanted to talk to him. Moments later I handed the phone through the opening to Leland. Shockingly, his violent nature abruptly ended and I took him back to his cell without incident. Ironically, I got permission from my supervisors to allow Leland to keep in frequent phone contact with his mother. I never had another emotionally raged outburst from Leland again.
My point is, yes educational degrees are important, but sometimes learning from actual experiences does give us less educated a place in the processes that are also looking for solutions to problems of our society.
In regards to Leland, he never felt any forces trying to secure him during his outbursts. This is why I said what I did that many mentally ill patients feel no pain other than their own minds exploding, per se.
Comment removed by moderator. Inappropriate
No guns will be taken away. It's all saber rattling by the government in order to placate the media and general public. They want us to think that they are just as surprised as we are.
There will be NO meaningful changes to make children any safer from nuts with guns than they were before this incident. The absolute worst case scenario will be a limit of round capacity in assault rifle magazines. Probably 10. So if you're planning to wreak havoc at any venue whatsoever, you'll have to buy two to three times as many magazines. Big whoop.
So no worries. Just sit back and do what the NRA is doing. Waiting for people to forget. The only ones who won't forget are the families and friends of those killed.
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Regarding my request of 8:53 this morning, Antigov commented: "@ renorobert, there are no private citizens to date who have stopped any mass murderers. I would ask if any of them would have the cajones to stand up to someone wearing full body armor while firing an AR-15 with a 50 round clip and plenty of backup clips."
I could, Antigov, but I already know any number of people who CLAIM that they would (read the comments section to various letters/stories). Talk, however, is cheap. I'm trying to determine if anyone has actually DONE it. So far, I only have a variety of negatives. With the number of mass shootings over the years, surely, if it's such a good idea for a single civilian to stand up alone against one or several mass shooters, SOMEONE would already have done it! Or is it just possible that it's a really BAD idea?
Renorobert: How would we know? Does the term mass murderers include serial killers. Some may have been killed by targeting the wrong (right?) victim. We all probably recall the FBI agent in line at the bank in Vegas when it was robbed. Agent tried but was killed. I don't recall the agent's name but they renamed the FBI building (in Vegas) after him.
There has been mention of the fact that those with mental "problems" need to be screened for when purchasing firearms. This might work in some cases, Virginia Tech comes to mind, but not in all cases. Firearms that are stolen, or "borrowed" without consent, or purchased from private individuals don't have any screening or waiting period. I am not saying that we should go back to instituting anyone with mental "problems", but maybe those that are a danger to themselves or society should be more closely monitored.
I carry a concealed weapon on my person every time I'm out in public. I'm not a nut case ,I am a law abiding normal joe shmo. Lord help the idiot that decides to go stupid if I'm in the crowd. Everybody should carry self protection on them it's a sick world we live in and the non sickies need to step it up a notch.
"Lord help the idiot that decides to go stupid if I'm in the crowd. Everybody should carry self protection on them it's a sick world."
Thanks for advice Kenny but I'd rather not live in a state of fear and paranoia.
Brad,
"Your nursing background, "PeaceLily" could provide us excellent suggestions in how these dangerous prescribed drugs can be controlled when consumed by mental health patients in a free society. I have no real suggestions or answers there."
I'm afraid there is no guaranteed way, short of requiring people to go to a clinic to get their doses, which could be prohibitive. Then, how do you trace those that don't show?
Not everyone is so bad that they need that type of surveillance. However, they could stop their home meds and go bad.
The costs would also be tremendous.
The best that could be done is for monthly follow up visits with the prescribing doctor, which could also become quarterly visits for those who are not at dangerous levels.
Honestly, I think it is more important to discover the source of the problems. What is causing these disorders? Addressing the causes, environmental, genetic, familial, whatever the source is. This is becoming an epidemic.
Additionally, is the problem caused by the drugs? Could the over prescribing be a problem, rather than finding other treatment methods? The doctors are more responsible in this area.
I respect your experience within the prison system. In that location, you have seen some of the worst problems, the end result of insufficient mental health care from an early stage and the politics of money.
Brad,
"Moments later I handed the phone through the opening to Leland. Shockingly, his violent nature abruptly ended and I took him back to his cell without incident. Ironically, I got permission from my supervisors to allow Leland to keep in frequent phone contact with his mother. I never had another emotionally raged outburst from Leland again."
You are a good man!
Imprisonment is not a normal environment, and following an established protocol to the letter may not elicit the needed response. Personal judgement is necessary, and you demonstrated that with safety. Bravo for taking time to recognized the problem and find a solution!
The goal should be to deal with the problems that make people unable to feel they can live in society without weapons for protection against some unseen threat.
Thinking the answer is to own guns and carry them is not the answer. This displays a lack of trust in general. It is the opposite of what should be.
The source of the lack of trust must be discovered and counseling should be undertaken. The lack of trust is connected to relationship problems at some time in a persons life, maybe multiple times. That seems compatible with some of the shooters in many of the extremes we have read about.
Then, we have those who are living in fear that has progressed to paranoia. Conspiracy theories are a past time. They have control issues as well. Certainly, their stability is questionable.
This is why comprehensive mental health exams should be required for gun ownership. If denied, they can at least get treatment.
I was in law enforcement and I can tell you that the ratio of good guys using guns to do good vs. the bad guys using guns to do damage is far apart! Sure you read the stories of the person that used a gun on a home intruder.. that is one incident compared to the 50 other incidents of "bad people" using the gun in the commission of a crime. We live in a modern society, people don't want to live in the old western movies! They don't want to live in a country where they live in fear everyday and have to carry a gun for self protection.. I guarantee you the constitution would be modified if people felt that was the choice! So don't push it!
Lets look at the actual ratio and statistics ... how many gun crimes are committed daily.. vs how many good guy gun owners prevent crimes by the ownership and carry of guns? I can tell you that if we were talking about anything other than guns everyone would ban them! The ratios dictate that they do more harm than good!
How many incidents in these public shootings have good gun owners intervened and even fired a single shot? the answer is - NONE! So your arguments of arming more people does not have facts or statistics to show that it would be effective.. we have at least 5 times as many guns as people in this country.. yet in all public incidents that have occurred not one citizen drew a weapon much less fired a shot! Amazing when you hear how many people claim to carry everywhere they go? They are either misleading us or they are afraid to actually use the weapon in public...SO they appear to be personal adult pacifiers! Either proves the statistics that more crimes are committed with guns than prevented with them.
Now we have right wing lunatics calling for arming our teachers with assault weapons? Really do we need combat trained teachers in our schools? Is this the America, the freedom, the lifestyle that we want to live in, much less pass on to our children? Is the lesson that unless you are packing you are a victim in the US?
Gun control alone will not prevent these incidents.. but it can be a part of the solution with other measures to reducing them. Greater access to guns has not proven to reduce them as is always sold by the Gun lobby. The answer is a cultural change but that takes time and will... we have neither.
We have a rash of unstable people getting access to guns and killing mass amounts of innocents. That's two components: Access to guns and the mentally ill. What's the conservative response? Increase guns (huh?) and defund 'entitlements' for the 47% of 'takers' who leech off the government....which includes the mentally ill.
Sorry, it time for the grown ups to step in and fix this....the conservatives can please go back to prepping, or defining what a legitimate rape is, or denying global warming, or believing in 'clean' coal, or job creators, or whatever. Just please step aside and let us fix this because your NRA backed policies over the years are making things much worse.
By Emthree
Dec. 18, 2012
9:52 a.m.
"Can anyone provide a documented instance of an armed private citizen using a personal weapon to halt or prevent a mass shooting? Just asking - I've not been able to find one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where do you get the idiotic idea that law abiding citizens carry guns to protect the spineless people who are scared of their own shadow. A CCW permit is used for self protection and not for protecting anyone else. The sheep that are scared of guns should just have a copy of the law that says its a crime to shoot or kill anyone and you should be prepared to show it to a crazy with a gun or knife and you should be just fine. Problem solved. If I were to pass you and a crazy had a shotgun in your mouth and about to pull the trigger, I wouldn't pull my gun because I'm in no danger and would continue on my way unless the crazy turned his attention to me after covering the sidewalk with your brains. I probably would call 911 if I had time and maybe the police would be able to help you when they arrived in 10-15 minutes.
Roger.......
We are only going to ban assault rifles.
Nobody needs an assault rifle, period.
An assault rifle is a weapon of mass destruction.
There is a NY Times article that gives a picture of something more going on in Newtown surrounding guns which could have fed this kind of killing spree.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregi...
In reply to "PeaceLily"; somehow I knew you would come through with a proposed solution that would be practical, right, just, not effect Constitutional rights, and would do a lot to begin a process of protecting our society.
A brilliant post at both 8:58 PM and 9:28 PM. In your words, "PeaceLily", "comprehensive mental health exams should be required for gun ownership. If denied, they can at least get treatment."
I like that solution!!! I would only add, that even all other gun owners, on a mandatory basis be screened with the same comprehensive mental health examinations.
"comprehensive mental health exams should be required for gun ownership. If denied, they can at least get treatment."
Except for the fact the kid didn't buy the guns you'd have a point.
Fort Hood has such strong gun control laws that most aren't able to carry even though they are highly trained and qualified. And you saw what happened there.
This mom and son were law abiding...until he wasn't. She trained her own killer and he used her weapons on her. So this started as a domestic violence murder and ended in suicide.
Gun Wisdom,,, Why have a GUN in your Home ? The Average Response Time of a 911 Call is 23 Minutes,,, The Response Time of a .357 GUN is 1400 Feet Per Second ,,,
Gun violence is killing 80 people a day. That's a lot of human potential going up in smoke.
Is1
You sound like a real tough guy (when you have a gun on you).
Guns make you feel safer, but they don't actually make you safer. If you own a gun, you are more susceptible to accidents, family disputes, kids getting ahold of it, or like recently, your son taking it. All in all, you are 4x more likely to be the victim rather than the hero. Buying a gun for 'protection' is a fallacy.
Guy in Fla carrying concealed weapon just shot unarmed guy in pizza parlor after sticking his nose into argument that dint concern him. This is part of how much safer we all are with concealed weapons. No every altercation can have bullets flying!
The young man doing the shooting had a known mental health history and a developmental disorder.
The mother's desire to have a gun collection was either and act of denial or serious irresponsibility.
The prior target practice events with explosions in the area were evident of a potential problem. Read this article for more details...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregi...
~~~~~~~~~
As far as arming teachers goes, that will only serve to make the the first target to take out. It is not rational to think of putting educators in that position.
~~~~~~~~~
Created EQL,
Sound points!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?