Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Friday’s tragedy in Connecticut is producing nothing more than our leaders uselessly tiptoeing around the issue of gun control. And the reason is not the Second Amendment.
It is no more absolute than the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. pointed out almost a century ago, no one has the right to cry fire in a crowded theater. As for the “no establishment of religion” clause in the First Amendment, religious institutions’ exemption from taxation is a subsidy and, ipso facto, an establishment.
The problem is not the Second Amendment; it is the power or alleged power of the National Rifle Association single-mindedly opposing politicians who call for gun control.
The answer to this fundamentally political problem is leadership and organization — leadership by the president, governors and members of Congress, supplemented by plain citizens, working for gun control legislation and politically supporting those the NRA attacks.
Federal law must ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons. If it is argued by the NRA that this would be but the first step on a slippery slope, so be it. The killer’s mother bought the gun, presumably passing a background check, so they are no better than passing a driving test.
I don’t pretend to know all or most of the answers to a Sandy Hook situation, but we must deal with gun violence now. It is already too late for too many.
Weiss does not once mention the killer as the real problem
Mental illness is the real problem
Deranged Killers are the real problem.
Blaming the NRA for making sure that people have second amendment rights is not the problem
Congress must immediately address doing something about the mentally ill. Only a small percentage are from assault weapons over a third of murders are dur to non gun violence
The mentally ill that are deranged are killing these people
Congress needs to act now now on the mental illness problem
----
Mental health problems might benefit from an adjustment in public perception. It should not be stigmatized. There are all kinds of things that fit within the area of mental health.
Many people can benefit from mental health services at some time in their lives if they can feel it is like going to the doctor for a pain or any other symptom.
Catching a disorder early can benefit the individual, family, friends, and others who come in contact with someone going through a crisis to some degree.
Everyone should feel the freedom to seek help when they need it, without fear. There is no reason to wait until it is critical and a person is unable to process rational thought.
Stigmatizing mental health conditions and issues forces governmental actions, when that is the last ditch solution.
Our attitudes toward mental health issues causes more damage that laws cannot solve. It is up to each individual to learn, change attitudes, and have the compassion needed toward people with mental health issues.
Being sensitive and supportive can help a person to get the care they need early. It is about a disorder or illness, and just because it is in the mind doesn't make it any different than any other disorder or illness. It is just another part the body.
What legislators can do is to ensure that the door is open to all mental health services for everyone who needs and seeks help.
Our society has neglected mental illness and those suffering from mental illness for too long. All too often, proactive measures and interventions never happen for young people, and they grow up into alienated adults that are a ticking time bomb in our society at large. I see it everyday in our schools, that situation should be alarming to all of us. And the population is growing and the incidents grow in proportion to that growth.
Decades ago, lawmakers virtually swung open the doors of mental hospitals and millions of mentally ill were released into mainstream America. Very little has been done since, to address aftercare and support for those who have been institutionalized, although the organization,NAMI, has made attempts to advocate for the mentally ill.
Mental illness is NO respector of persons. It can happen to anyone, but poverty will limit access to care. The focus needs to be on improving the American mental health system.
Blessings and Peace,
Star
It is always easier to focus on the tool than the tool user, in this case the gun rather than the mentally disturbed user of the weapon. We need to cut to the chase on this and start looking at the underlying traits of the perpetrators of these terrible massacres. Gun control is not the right response. It is a diversion only.
Banning semi-automatic weapons would not have stopped what in Connecticut.
Democrats are using this tradegy for a power grab.
Their long term goal is a total ban or a near total ban on guns.
If you own guns or believe in the right to own guns then don't vote for Democrats.
No single factor caused this tragedy. It was a combination of mental health, access to guns, access to large clips, security, ....etc. Each will need to be addressed. This is certainly NOT a diversion, or a Democrat thing. It is simply common sense and overdue.
PART ONE
In reply to Stuart Weiss; what is it going to take to make people in this country understand that the root problem to gun violence in our society is mental illness. Even though I'm not a member of, or even fond of the (NRA), the National Rifle Association, the attempted demise by hard-line liberals coupled with banning all sorts of weapons, ammunition and clips are not the overall answer to the ever increasing extreme violence in America.
I have to wonder why these hard-line liberals love to take political "potshots" at the NRA every chance they have. I don't see anybody condemning every step of the way, "The National Association of Bar and Tavern Owners" (NABTO). Aren't their lobbyists and promotion of their mind-altering beverages just as, or even more dangerous to the well being of our society than the NRA's agenda of weapons? If you don't think so, sit in a bar or tavern and watch people consume large quantities of alcoholic beverages and then upon their completion, many of these same individuals are doing a bee-line right to their vehicles to drive away. Surely, driving under the influence is illegal as it should be, and should have stern consequences, but it is not the answer to ending the surges in drunk driving and the huge amount of deaths that result from its indulgence. Maybe closing down all bars and taverns would be the answer, you think? Nah, not really, people would still get their alcohol from package and convenience stores and still drive intoxicated. Maybe we should ban these outlet stores too. Are you getting my point here, Stuart? Laws of course, are necessary, but at best, they are only curtailments. They are NOT solutions to the core of a national societal and or public safety problem.
Our courts take those convicted of driving under the influence, (DUI's), many of which who are not charged with any type of injuries or deaths and send them to detoxification centers for treatment. Hmm, mental health treatment isn't it? Why is gun violence looked at so differently? Do you think that substance abuse is the only type of mental illness disorder in our country that needs to be adequately funded? Think again, Stuart. There are over three hundred manifestations of mental illnesses in America. Each one, on its own acknowledgment, per se, has the strong capability of leading to acts of death and or serious forms of violence that equal or exceed the consequences of driving under the influence.
Stuart, the most potent forms of alcoholic beverages in the hands of responsible Americans has absolutely no threat whatsoever to our society. The same goes for weapons, and ammunition. WE MUST as a nation, screen, identify and treat those who pose a risk to our free way of life here in this country.
PART TWO
However, those on the NRA's conservative side, must give a little. Even former President George W. Bush, whom I consider to be one of our most unintelligent leaders ever, understood the absolute need for universal screening and treatment of mental illnesses. In 2002 he established a "New Freedom Commission" on mental health. Although there were some provisions of this bill that could be debated as not only an infringement of rights, and highly beneficial to pharmaceutical companies, at least Mr. Bush had the presence of mind to know it was instrumental to have an effective mental health screening and treatment process for America that former President Ronald Reagan had dismantled during his presidency.
Of course, in the infinite wisdom of America's elected leaders, this mental health program was "shot down" and the war in Iraq during this timeframe was supported. Not very bright was it, Stuart? In my opinion, your letter to the editor fit's the same category.
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
BySgtRock,
"Banning semi automatic weapons would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut".
Attacking and killing 6 teacher's and 20 small 6 and 7 year children with an assault rifle.The results could have been less deaths if a hand pistol were the only weapon.Maybe the teacher's would have had a better chance of rushing the killer and stopping the slaughter, if he had not had a assault rifle.The children were each shot multiple times which tells us that the killer never let go of the trigger.
Just thinking about how some of this may have had a better ending if a ban were in place against assault weapons.Does it take the death's of 20, 6 and 7 year old children to wake up America that we have a huge gun problem.
This is what an intelligent article looks like:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinio...
Not that conservatives posting here will ever admit or recognize this fact.
Just another outstanding example of the lack in leadership and public IQ this country displays. Reid, Feinstein, Biden, Obama and juvenile journalist all have guns and tanks protecting themselves against the worlds wackos and actually want us to believe that banning firearms will solve the mental illness issue. Starting with Hollywood and the media would be better at stopping copycat violence.
That's the ticket: don't like the Constitution and the protections it affords us all? Then trash it, burn it; better yet, rip it up. Hey, why not turn it on its head and make the USA a nation run by "Rule of Man" instead of by "Rule of Law?" No big deal, right? That is, until they come for something or some right you cherish. Then who's going to save your sorry behind? Osama Obama and his bunch of "useful idiots" are but one more nail in the coffin of the freedoms that so many of our fellow Americans fought, bled and died to protect and some are eager to give them up for, what, "pie in the sky, Worker Paradises" promises made by Socialists and Communists? I see where mental illness affects more than just mass murders!
"The problem is not the Second Amendment; it is the power or alleged power of the National Rifle Association single-mindedly opposing politicians who call for gun control."
Weiss -- you're wrong, and making a convenient scapegoat of the NRA solves nothing. Sandy Hook happened in a state with some of this nation's strictest gun control laws already enacted and enforced. Yet we see berserkers committing violent crimes like this because those laws are irrelevant to them. You also seem to be ignorant of this republic you live in. Congress has no jurisdiction of any strictly in-state crime like this.
"It is always easier to focus on the tool than the tool user. . .Gun control is not the right response. It is a diversion only."
Houstonjac -- I agree completely
"...what is it going to take to make people in this country understand that the root problem to gun violence in our society is mental illness."
BChap -- you made a career out of law enforcement yet you think that's the root cause?? Get real. Violence has always been with us. Human society has been around for millennia, and recorded their history for thousands of years, yet everyone now seems at a loss at how to handle the predators among us? The cure is what it's always been, and why it's enshrined in our Constitutions to protect defending ourselves and what's ours. The alternative is the kind of police state that organic law forbids and Orwell warned us of.
"This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law." -- Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.
Bradley:
This explains the views of many non NRA members towards the current incarnation of the NRA quite succinctly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejS7QiOQ...
It is pretty simple for me. They are beholden to "Smith and Wesson" not you and me.
"It is pretty simple for me. They are beholden to "Smith and Wesson" not you and me."
JeffFromVegas -- hardly.
"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." -- post-Civil War slogan @ http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/H...
"Just thinking about how some of this may have had a better ending if a ban were in place against assault weapons.Does it take the death's of 20, 6 and 7 year old children to wake up America that we have a huge gun problem."
A ban would not remove the fact that, if someone wants that weapon, they can get it. The ban didn't stop Columbine High School massacre in 1999.
"The massacre sparked debate over gun control laws, the availability of firearms within the United States and gun violence involving youths. Much discussion also centered on the nature of high school cliques, subcultures and bullying, in addition to the influence of violent movies and video games in American society. The shooting resulted in an increased emphasis on school security, and a moral panic aimed at goth culture, social outcasts, gun culture, the use of pharmaceutical anti-depressants by teenagers, teenage Internet use and violent video games."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_H...
2001/2002: John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo murdered 15 people in a series of sniper shootings in the Washington D.C. area.
AND HERE WE ARE IN 2012 WITH THE SAME DEBATE!
Actually the problem lies with the kid's mother. She knew the kid was unstable and yet taught him to fire semi-automatic rifles. I suppose it was to raise his self-esteem.
She should have just allowed him to correct spelling errors on comment blogs. This has worked out well for Schaffer.
Killer B:
From the fat tub of goo AKA Antonin Scalia "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues....
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment 's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.cted right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
It was Ronald Reagan's poor leadership that started all of this in the first place. Put all of the mentally ill people with no money on the street to live in boxes and drain pipes and the economy will improve for the nations wealthy.
"From the fat tub of goo AKA Antonin Scalia..."
Jeff -- opinions vary
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
By Tick,
"A ban would not remove the fact that,If someone wants that weapon they can get it.The ban didn't stop the columbine high school massacre in 1999".
Adam Lanza the mentallty ill killer of 26 children and teachers in Connecticut got his weapons from his mother's arsenal.
It has been said that he was shy and one to not talk to people. His hair stylist has said while cutting Adam's hair everytime he asked him a question he would not answer,only to have his mother answer for him. Do you really think he was capable of getting a gun on his own with his personalty. I don't think so,the weapons were their for him to take from his mother's arsenal,and kill innocents.
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; your points are well taken.
However, it might come as a surprise that if I was asked to vote on whether or not assault rifles should be banned; I would vote in favor of this measure.
Jeff, don't waste your time debating with "KillerB". He views any practical and reasonable processes from government as an act towards a police state.
BChap's quote of the day;
You can work very hard in drying a wheelbarrow full of sloppy mud. However, the best result you will get is a dirt surface with a lot of cracks."
>B. Chapline<
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; I agree that Americans have a right to bear arms; however, at the same time it should have limitations. I wouldn't think any American should have the right to possess rocket launchers. Well in my opinion, assault rifles fall into that same category of weapons that are in absolute excess of Constitutional rights for any American to own or possess.
To preclude violence and hopelessness, provide community, compassion and take care of our own. Social work, from the macro approach (deal with the global) says if we can only get people to take care of their own, we'd have nobody falling through the cracks. Sure, we need alternatives and options for orphans and those who've runaway from support systems but the emphasis should be on taking care of our family, our neighbors, our co-workers, our peers. We should have options for law enforcement and responsible adults who don't see the alternatives for specific individuals. But each and every day, the entire population, you and me, need to provide for our own--when someone we know is floundering. AND, since we're not all trained professionals, we should not push or prod anyone into anything s/he is not ready to accept. We should consult resources for advice: Dr. Phil is available, various other celebrity / contributors with professional training, our family physicians might provide guidance, the Quick Care non-ER staff.....BEFORE suggesting someone need's to be committed or placed into 24/7 treatment.
The irony of tough gun control laws is that Ft Hood has some of the strongest despite having a qualified population of gun users.
A shame the result was bending over and pleading for your life to a muslim terrorist.
The problem is only when we have gun-free zones.
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
God Bless the NRA!
More on that Portland Mall shooting:
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
Bradley,
Your 6:10 AM letter of two parts is well stated and well reasoned. Personally, I don't care if they ban assault weapons or they don't. Other than that people want them, there is no good reason to make them available.
If the Connecticut shooter's mom hadn't had an assault weapon, maybe he'd have just used hand guns and not been able to kill so many... and maybe he still would have killed them all. For the chance that a ban might have lessened the death toll, a ban on assault weapons might be a good idea.
That said, the mental health issues surrounding the Connecticut shooter and others that have killed in mass killings are the more important but also much more complex issue.
Americans that feel entitled and that just about anything should be allowed are, to me, where the problem really resides. Too many people want to be able to own anything they want to own with very few restrictions, don't want to pay enough taxes to support more mental health support for the mentally ill and are also unwilling to make it easier to force mentally ill people who do not wish to get assistance into settings where they are not totally free to act as they wish within the general society.
If we want to do 'all' we can to lessen the chances of more killings like we saw in Connecticut, we need to address much more than assault weapons.
Michael
"If we want to do 'all' we can to lessen the chances of more killings like we saw in Connecticut, we need to address much more than assault weapons."
wtplv -- Connecticut already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in this nation. Check it out @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
"Sanity is a cozy lie." -- Susan Sontag
Future,
I am not arguing that gun control is the answer to mass killings. That would only be true if the government took away every gun in the country and could ensure that no American could ever get a gun. That obviously isn't going to happen.
But the truth is that semi automatic assault type weapons with large capacity clips do make a person capable of killing many people in a short amount of time.
Other than being in a war when your life depends on the ability to kill many people in a short amount of time, what, in your opinion is the reason Americans need to own such weapons, other than the fact that they just want to?
Michael
Rusty57 said:
"By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
God Bless the NRA!"
I say:
Are you saying God only Blesses and protects people with guns? Are you saying that the 11th commandment is "Thou shalt get a gun because I will abandon you in your time of need" I mean, what is your point?
Very good post Peacelily and I agree. People that need help should not be afraid to seek it.
This latest psycho was not content to just kill first-grade students and their teachers. No, he took the time to pump multiple rounds into the victims bodies, using some of the Ambushmaster's coolest features. Suddenly a killing tool turned a coward into a god who decided the fate of helpless innocents.
In reply to Michael Casler; thank you for your reply of 10:36 AM. I guess we shouldn't expect some people to understand the essentials of universal mental health care. Some just don't know, others just don't care.
However, in contrast, it is apparent that treating of the mentally ill are still in stages of its infancy. There is no doubt that a good bit of under and over medicating of the mentally ill triggers violent collective episodes. Worse yet, are interruptions and or discontinuations of these medications without clinical supervision of these psychotropic and antidepressant medications. Situations arise where only intermittently, these dangerous and potent medications are dispensed to mentally ill patients. There is a horrible truth that is spoken by mental health professionals in the civilian sector; "A person's treatment for mental illness can only go as far as their medical benefits cover." This is an aspect that must change! As I've been saying in my recent posts, if we ignore universal mental health coverage, the extreme violence in America will only become more frequent.
In a different scenario, some years ago, Michael, I worked with this woman who suffered with periodic bouts of bipolarity. When she was on schedule with her medication, she was a bright, vibrant woman with a lot of self-esteem and confidence. On the dark side, when she was late in taking her medication, she became, for unknown reasons to me, sexually aggressive and promiscuous. I talked to a mental health professional, and he verified that for some women, a discontinuation of certain types of mental health medications did, in fact, bring forth these types of sexual behaviors. I did my best, when I could to protect her during these episodes. However, some staff, even a few supervisors, and inmates took advantage of her weaknesses in relation to this side effect when the situation presented an opportunity to do so. This lady, was finally caught in a sexual situation with a small group of inmates, and was escorted from her place of employment. She, in addition, was facing criminal charges for engaging in sexual acts while on the job.
Although I certainly did not condone her on-duty behavior, in anger, I confronted upper-management. My point to them was, that they were aware of her condition. Further, under the American Disabilities Act, her employer, was required by law to protect her. Really, all our employer needed to do was to assign this lady with a partner who could be trusted not to take advantage of her mental illness condition should it surface during work hours. Our employer didn't do that.
I have to assume this is the reason she was not prosecuted.
Michael, some people just don't understand the necessities of universal mental health care. Others just don't care to understand. Some entries in this discussion room prove this, as fact.
"The children were each shot multiple times which tells us that the killer never let go of the trigger."
Semi-automatics require re-pulling of the trigger.
The killer could have killed the same number with .45 handguns instead of a rifle.
"Mental Health Care" does not identify, let alone help or improve, those who are systematically psychotic. Furthermore, there are so many classifications and variations of mental instability that it is impossible to create responses to 99% of them. The insanity plea just allows someone to stay out of jail after a crime.
Many careers in psychiatry are created by removing a deviant from the standard judicial path, setting them aside and 'studying them' ad infinitum. The psychotic soul mates wish and pray for the same punishment, and the beat goes on -
"Bang bang, he shot me down
Bang bang, I hit the ground
Bang bang, that awful sound
Bang bang, my baby shot me down."
But WTF, there's a lot of money to make here, particularly in the arts and entertainment field.
BySgtRock,
"Semi automatic require re-pulling the trigger".
The killer in Newtown Conn.used a Bushmaster.223 military style rifle.You can choose with a switch to shoot either 3 rounds per shot or go fully automatic.Either way you can kill a lot of people in a very short time.Sounds like an assault rifle to me.