Is America too PC to Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings?

[HenryReardon]

This is a valid observation understanding that none of us is equipped with the moral authority to be able judge others,

Every human behing, if he or she is honest with themselves, goes though life making instant assessments (judgments, if you must) of other people, moral authority notwithstanding.

[JockBoy87]

Ignorance and untreated personality disorders are to blame. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to make a false connection between autism and violence, where none exists. That's because autism is not a personality disorder, it's a developmental disorder. Lanza could have had any one of comorbid conditions, such as ASPD, that are personality disorders sometimes disposed towards violence, but we will never know for sure.

[bankside]

Ignorance and untreated personality disorders are to blame. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to make a false connection between autism and violence, where none exists. That's because autism is not a personality disorder, it's a developmental disorder. Lanza could have had any one of comorbid conditions, such as ASPD, that are personality disorders sometimes disposed towards violence, but we will never know for sure.

In other words, he might just as easily have had diabetes, but that also wouldn't account for his actions in the way that people are likely to attribute to his autism. Yes?

[frankfrank]

And even if you have good private insurance, you'll probably have to wait three or four months for actual care in an in-patient facility.

How we treat mental illness in this country is a shame in terms of the Second Amendment. Here we are, supposed to have a militia of all able-bodied, but no one has paid any attention to able-minded, which was also part of the militia concept. At the very least, we need a system of reporting people who have shown they aren't fit for the militia so they can't obtain items for destruction. But we ought also to have a robust mental health system so that people aren't neglected until it's too late. They say that one in seventeen Americans suffers from a severe mental illness, and one in eight from a moderate one. Since the citizenry is the source for soldiers when we need them, it makes sense from the point of the security of our free state to have a system to keep as many as possible stable and competent enough to be a useful part of the general militia.

Now, that view will be shocking, but I don't think it's any more shocking than the fact that we haven't built an extensive system of just basic mental health care just out of common decency. We shouldn't have had to reach this point because of repeated tragedy, or even out of a thorough approach to military readiness, we should have reached it because it's obvious that people whose brains have weird chemistry or structure or whatever so that their minds don't function well for dealing with the world need our help.

I don't think it's nearly as taboo now to talk about mental illness as it was in Reagan's time. I've heard it mentioned as something needed to deal with the shooting situations, on ABC, BBC America, CBS, NBC, and our local Fox station. Obama came out and said it. Some Republican congresscritter in the tube said it. And I notice that when I was first diagnosed as bipolar, knowing that made people nervous, but now they (even redneck types) just nod at the information.

So in a way I think the contrary to the thread question is the case: I think we're "PC enough" that now we can talk about it.

Replaced my post, as the "issue" was covered in the meantime.

I agree to the hilt, Kul! I've been saying for years that the U.S. mental health care system is barbaric and primitive, and available only to the ultra-wealthy.

If instead of 1960 I had been born much later and I had to face my problems in 1990 (after Reagan got pretty much everything shut down), I would be dead by now.

[frankfrank]

I don't expect to hear, possibly ever again once we reach 2013, the media talking about the good idea of having available mental health care, but I'm certainly happy to hear it being talked about now.

I've been waiting for decades for such a discussion. That news story article quoted early in the thread is something that has happened in this country thousands, perhaps even millions, of times.

[HenryReardon]

Perhaps we're looking too far afield in our search for blame.
One of the unfortunate aspects of modern society is society's inability to blame an individual for his/her faults.

"It wasn't his fault - it was the guns"
or ...it was theway he was raised
or ....it was the influences in his life
or .... he was disturbed

all of which are very likely subsets of the PC problem.

Why can't we, as a society, face up to the fact that there are some people who are truly evil, and nothing will ever fix the problem.

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

is simple answer

but so far no land wanna hear it or do it or deal wit it

if human survive all wot man keep do ans look back wot left - pin drop find words fa it

thankyou

[FuryOfFirestorm]

...Republicans don't care to help people with mental disorders.

Well, if they cure the crazy people, then who will vote for them?

[rareboy]

^^^

... and you have that intellectual and moral authority to tell me and others what rights we have. Gotcha.

No...I don't, but that has nothing to do with it. I'm not telling you what rights you have or should have.

I'm just pointing out that you are arguing from an utterly dishonest standpoint which renders your outrage over all of this impotent and pretty much valueless in the whole discussion as you and others start determining what rights the mentally ill or those with developmental problems may have.

And the right to point this out to you is as right that I have.

[JockBoy87]

In other words, he might just as easily have had diabetes, but that also wouldn't account for his actions in the way that people are likely to attribute to his autism. Yes?

People keep bringing it up. It's wrong, wrong wrong. The media keeps ringing that bell, while at the same time, quoting psychologists who say there is no link between autism and violence. It's ridiculous.

Researchers have found no connection between autism and violence, but that hasn't stopped the mainstream media from harping on Newtown shooter Adam Lanza's apparent bout with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism but is no longer listed in the DSM-5. Of course, it hasn't stopped the emotional responses from those familiar with autism, either.

http://news.yahoo.com/adam-lanza-asp...JQkH8A6tfQtDMD

[Kulindahr]

Mental illness determines why they attack.

Gun control determines how many die as a result.

Except gun control doesn't -- studies have shown that. Gun control accomplishes almost nothing.

OTOH, mental illness control could: just change the NICS so people noted as dangerous by public institutions such as colleges will get reported and their names flagged. And get them free help.

[Kulindahr]

Keep in mind,the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violent crimes then not.

And far more likely to be arrested than others.

[Kulindahr]

You're being disingenuous if you think the media action was directed toward mental illness and not gun control -- if mental illness was the top subject -- why isn't there a call in Congress to debate mental illness and violence.

They're waiting to hear from the people who write big campaign checks.

[Kulindahr]

The problem is Jack...that the two things are not mutually exclusive and you and some of the other reactionaries seem to believe they are.

We need to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. There is a way to do this with better gun control.

I think we need new terms -- "gun control" has become so broad as to be meaningless (kinda like "retarded").

[Kulindahr]

You are getting lost in the details, all the while ignoring the larger picture.


It is an indisuptable fact that society has been dumbed down and corrupted by political correctness to the point that people are "afraid" to talk openly about many subjects for fear of "offending" someone. This is a very real propblem because so many people, expecially the uber liberals are waiting (perhaps, hoping) to be offended. They seem to get off on it, and that is a sad commentary on the state of discourse today.

There's a small bit of truth in this, but not as much as you think.

[Kulindahr]

Ignorance and untreated personality disorders are to blame. Unfortunately, a lot of people are going to make a false connection between autism and violence, where none exists. That's because autism is not a personality disorder, it's a developmental disorder. Lanza could have had any one of comorbid conditions, such as ASPD, that are personality disorders sometimes disposed towards violence, but we will never know for sure.

"Sometimes disposed towards violence" is where it gets tricky. If we want this portion of the populace excluded from the militia -- which is really what's being discussed -- we must draw the line carefully.

[bankside]

I think we need new terms -- "gun control" has become so broad as to be meaningless (kinda like "retarded").

True. Gun control has been debased in some countries to mean "I may have to fill out a small form before purchasing the weapon of my choice." Incidentally I would expect "studies" to show that that kind of gun control is ineffective.

By gun control I mean broad disarmament and buyback of previously legal weapons.

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps we're looking too far afield in our search for blame.
One of the unfortunate aspects of modern society is society's inability to blame an individual for his/her faults.

"It wasn't his fault - it was the guns"
or ...it was theway he was raised
or ....it was the influences in his life
or .... he was disturbed

all of which are very likely subsets of the PC problem.

Why can't we, as a society, face up to the fact that there are some people who are truly evil, and nothing will ever fix the problem.

Why can't reactionaries, as part of a society, face up to the fact that thinking is a useful tool, and calling things "evil" won't ever fix the problem?

[TX-Beau]

'Cause bokk learnin' is scary socialism.

[Kulindahr]

True. Gun control has been debased in some countries to mean "I may have to fill out a small form before purchasing the weapon of my choice." Incidentally I would expect "studies" to show that that kind of gun control is ineffective.

By gun control I mean broad disarmament and buyback of previously legal weapons.

So you want to penalize the innocent many in an attempt to get at the guilty few.

Wonderful how many "gun control" people don't want to focus on the actual problem.

[Kulindahr]

'Cause bokk learnin' is scary socialism.

Too bad there's no magic pill that will make people think.

Though we'd probably use them all up just getting and keeping a rational Congress.

[rareboy]

Well the OP and the other reactionaries on here are going to be disappointed then, because the President has joined the bandwagon and done exactly what I figured would happen by focussing directly on mental health and the culture of violence and not making the merest mention of any proscriptions on firearms.

We’re going to need on making access to mental health at least as easy as access to a gun. We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that, all too often, glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex, can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence, doesn’t mean that we can’t steadily reduce the violence and prevent the very worst violence. That’s why I asked the vice president to lead an effort to include members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January, proposals that I then intend to push without delay.

This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read and then pushed aside.

This is a team that has a very specific task to pull together real reforms right now.

http://nation.foxnews.com/sandy-hook...b-gun-violence

I guarantee all of you that by the time that mid January rolls around...and once again, everyone confronts the vastness of the issue of mental health care.....America will want to stop talking about it. The price tag for 22 kids will look pretty reasonable next to the dollars and effort to address mental health in America.

And expecting the US to wean itself away from a culture of violence that has taken over 200 years to create and elevate?

Really?

[TX-Beau]

So you want to penalize the innocent many in an attempt to get at the guilty few.

Wonderful how many "gun control" people don't want to focus on the actual problem.

"...here come those tired old tits..."

(points to the guy who gets that reference!)

Get off that horse Kuli - it's a dodge, it's NOT THE POINT.

YOU don't want to focus on the actual issue - but you aren't going to listen to me, so I suppose it's pointless to bother.

[HenryReardon]

Why can't reactionaries, as part of a society, face up to the fact that thinking is a useful tool, and calling things "evil" won't ever fix the problem?

Are you saying that the man who killed all those people wasn't evil?
Pure evil cannot be fixed. Get over it and get on with your life.

[TX-Beau]

Wow, just wow.

You go Henry! Stick it to him!

[bankside]

So you want to penalize the innocent many in an attempt to get at the guilty few.

Wonderful how many "gun control" people don't want to focus on the actual problem.

First, my point was just to provide a measure of concreteness to the term.

Second, the actual problem overlooked by "gun people" is that free people may decide that disarmament is a better guarantor of their security and safety. They may decide that mutually looking out for each other is more effective than every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. And they may conduct themselves that way; they may conclude that armed or unarmed police can form one part of their approach, and they may not only just conduct themselves that way, they may even vote for governments to institutionalise it.

[JockBoy87]

"Sometimes disposed towards violence" is where it gets tricky. If we want this portion of the populace excluded from the militia -- which is really what's being discussed -- we must draw the line carefully.

Psychopaths are going to get their weapons from somewhere, somehow. If not a gun shop, then a house member, if not then a friend, and so on.

To put this into perspective again, mass murders are still extremely rare events. In the US, there are 50 million students in 100,000 public schools, not even counting private institutions.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

[Kulindahr]

Psychopaths are going to get their weapons from somewhere, somehow. If not a gun shop, then a house member, if not then a friend, and so on.

To put this into perspective again, mass murders are still extremely rare events. In the US, there are 50 million students in 100,000 public schools, not even counting private institutions.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Maybe. But that tweak in the NICS would at least make it harder. And a basic mental health system would cut the number who get so crazy.

[kallipolis]

This link is worth clicking if only for the photograph:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mber-guns.html

I quote:

The astonishing arsenal of guns handed in by people living in America's deadliest city - just hours after Sandy Hook massacre

Impacted by the carnage in Sandy Hook, residents of Camden, New Jersey, turned in a record number of weapons in a gun buyback program over the weekend. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. 1,137 firearms including an elephant gun were handed in on Friday and Saturday at two churches in the crime-plagued town as the ramifications of the mass child killings in Connecticut seemed to inspire residents to give up their arm

[bankside]

This link is worth clicking if only for the photograph:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mber-guns.html

I quote:

The astonishing arsenal of guns handed in by people living in America's deadliest city - just hours after Sandy Hook massacre

Impacted by the carnage in Sandy Hook, residents of Camden, New Jersey, turned in a record number of weapons in a gun buyback program over the weekend. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. 1,137 firearms including an elephant gun were handed in on Friday and Saturday at two churches in the crime-plagued town as the ramifications of the mass child killings in Connecticut seemed to inspire residents to give up their arm

It is mostly worth clicking for the idea itself. What a wonderful riposte to those whose first thought was to run out and arm themselves. Disarmament is an idea that has a proven track record in Australia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20765259

[kallipolis]

It is mostly worth clicking for the idea itself. What a wonderful riposte to those whose first thought was to run out and arm themselves. Disarmament is an idea that has a proven track record in Australia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20765259

It's photographs like this which encourage me to believe that such matters can change, given the right sort of response by people.

I'm encouraged by this article. There again, I'm rather naive, and highly optimistic.

[Kulindahr]

First, my point was just to provide a measure of concreteness to the term.

Second, the actual problem overlooked by "gun people" is that free people may decide that disarmament is a better guarantor of their security and safety. They may decide that mutually looking out for each other is more effective than every-man-and-his-gun-to-himself. And they may conduct themselves that way; they may conclude that armed or unarmed police can form one part of their approach, and they may not only just conduct themselves that way, they may even vote for governments to institutionalise it.

So if the people of the US passed a "one man, one woman" amendment, you'd be perfectly content with it?

No, because rights cannot be put to a vote -- that's tyranny of the majority.

A vote to take away guns has no validity, any more than a vote to prohibit the use of certain words or the practice of certain religions.

[Kulindahr]

This link is worth clicking if only for the photograph:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mber-guns.html

I quote:

The astonishing arsenal of guns handed in by people living in America's deadliest city - just hours after Sandy Hook massacre

Impacted by the carnage in Sandy Hook, residents of Camden, New Jersey, turned in a record number of weapons in a gun buyback program over the weekend. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. 1,137 firearms including an elephant gun were handed in on Friday and Saturday at two churches in the crime-plagued town as the ramifications of the mass child killings in Connecticut seemed to inspire residents to give up their arm

So a large number of citizens decided they were capable of being just as violent as that shooter. Did they also go to treatment centers to get help with their problem?

[JockBoy87]

Maybe. But that tweak in the NICS would at least make it harder. And a basic mental health system would cut the number who get so crazy.

You would think it would.

It's now thought Adam Lanza got wind of his mother's attempts to have him committed, and then planned revenge on her and his elementary school. We now know that he did go to Sandy Hook Elementary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2329508.html

[kallipolis]

So a large number of citizens decided they were capable of being just as violent as that shooter. Did they also go to treatment centers to get help with their problem?

Ask them. I'm not the one assuming that gun owners are insane, or challenged by Autism related issues.

[bankside]

So if the people of the US passed a "one man, one woman" amendment, you'd be perfectly content with it?

No, because rights cannot be put to a vote -- that's tyranny of the majority.

A vote to take away guns has no validity, any more than a vote to prohibit the use of certain words or the practice of certain religions.

Though in the best tradition of westminster constitutionalism I would see no need for a document to be there for amendment in the first place, yes, the US can pass whatever amendments it likes that aim to meet the original objectives of the text at the moment, which I understand to be to provide personal safety and security, to enable citizenry to act against invasion, and to ensure government accountability. I do think those amendments, past or future, only retain the authority that comes from their congruence to inherent rights and the principles of justice, for as long as they continue to efficiently accomplish those goals.

For example, I think outlandish campaign spending, gerrymandering, and unverifiable voting technology provide far greater, immediate, and credible threats to government accountability than any firearms imbalance. And incidentally one that can be remedied without having to have citizens off shooting the government, which as I've said before is an inept way for the people to hold their government to account that they'd wait so long as to use violence. I think that counts as a strike against the text as it reads today.

Second, though we differ in our personal assessments I think it could be determined to an objective standard whether disarmed societies provide greater personal safety and security, and whether other techniques could be adopted by citizens that would yield reliably greater results for citizens.

Third, I just don't think personal firearms serve as any kind of deterrent at all against exchanges between countries with modern militaries. It isn't credible.

What's left, assuming disposition of the second condition, is the principle of personal whim. Something free governments should not intrude upon unless there is a rational connection. Here it is: if I have two gun-owning neighbours, one of whom stores the guns securely and operates them carefully, the other who ineptly assigns a gun to his child "for protection at school" as if such a laughably grotesque idea could even be brought forth into action by the mind addled enough to think it, I reserve the right to ban both gun owners from their whim if it prevents my child from having a gun levels at his head by the idiot's child. Others are welcome to propose a less restrictive measure of equal effect, but it is their burden to demonstrate, not mine. There is every reason not to give deference to this whim, but to indulge it only within demonstrable limits.

Incidentally, I assume you would support people opting to join a disarmed community with the mutual understanding, not shared by you, that guns were less effective than looking out for each other in other ways. Easy. Or would you propose an obligation to own a gun? If not, what happens in Disarmament County when one of the kids raised there disagrees with his parents' generation? Should he be allowed to disrupt a way of life or should he leave? Does a society have a right to a consensus?

[Kulindahr]

You would think it would.

It's now thought Adam Lanza got wind of his mother's attempts to have him committed, and then planned revenge on her and his elementary school. We now know that he did go to Sandy Hook Elementary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2329508.html

When a mother believes her son is dangerous, there should be a system where she can take him directly there where he'd be held for an evaluation. Put such places in malls -- they could be going shopping, for all he knew... but, Surprise!

Some would say that with bipolar disorder I could be a danger someday. If my friends and family thought I was becoming one and I didn't recognize it, I would hope there would be facilities to take me to, get me evaluated, and fix the problem. So I'm advocating something I could be subject to myself, and would be glad to be.

And if the docs said I couldn't have my guns for a while, fine -- I already know that when the alcohol comes out the guns go away, and the reason is the same as with mental illness: it messes with the mind.

[Rolyo85]

Total nonsense.

I just want you to know that EVERY time you qualify somebody's post in this way, thus adding an entirely "spam" post with no content at all, I report you for trolling

[Kulindahr]

Though in the best tradition of westminster constitutionalism I would see no need for a document to be there for amendment in the first place, yes, the US can pass whatever amendments it likes that aim to meet the original objectives of the text at the moment, which I understand to be to provide personal safety and security, to enable citizenry to act against invasion, and to ensure government accountability. I do think those amendments, past or future, only retain the authority that comes from their congruence to inherent rights and the principles of justice, for as long as they continue to efficiently accomplish those goals.

Given that the Constitution says it's for promoting the general welfare, the Second Amendment's desire to allow all citizens to be armed must have been considered a way to promote the general welfare. So there can't really be much constitutional objection to working within the meaning of the Second to make sure it's contributing to promoting the general welfare.

What's left, assuming disposition of the second condition, is the principle of personal whim. Something free governments should not intrude upon unless there is a rational connection. Here it is: if I have two gun-owning neighbours, one of whom stores the guns securely and operates them carefully, the other who ineptly assigns a gun to his child "for protection at school" as if such a laughably grotesque idea could even be brought forth into action by the mind addled enough to think it, I reserve the right to ban both gun owners from their whim if it prevents my child from having a gun levels at his head by the idiot's child. Others are welcome to propose a less restrictive measure of equal effect, but it is their burden to demonstrate, not mine. There is every reason not to give deference to this whim, but to indulge it only within demonstrable limits.

You can't ban a right on the basis of a concern. Telling others what they can or cannot do is not a right.

Incidentally, I assume you would support people opting to join a disarmed community with the mutual understanding, not shared by you, that guns were less effective than looking out for each other in other ways. Easy. Or would you propose an obligation to own a gun? If not, what happens in Disarmament County when one of the kids raised there disagrees with his parents' generation? Should he be allowed to disrupt a way of life or should he leave? Does a society have a right to a consensus?

I think the whole problem here is the extent, even the existence, of geographical nations. Certainly citizens have the right ti form a community within which, by agreement of all, there will be no weapons -- after all, the freedom to do a thing implies the freedom to not do it, or it's not freedom but tyranny. But such an agreement cannot be handed down from generation to generation by coercion; all must be free to choose. Large geographical nations aren't conducive to such liberty.

[JockBoy87]

When a mother believes her son is dangerous, there should be a system where she can take him directly there where he'd be held for an evaluation. Put such places in malls -- they could be going shopping, for all he knew... but, Surprise!

Of course the only person who would be able to definitively answer these questions is dead. For all we know, Lanza's mother may well have tried. We know that she never let anyone in the house, and that she never told people about her relationship with her son. Not surprising, as people are averse to airing out such dirty laundry.

[Rolyo85]

Perhaps we're looking too far afield in our search for blame.
One of the unfortunate aspects of modern society is society's inability to blame an individual for his/her faults.

"It wasn't his fault - it was the guns"
or ...it was theway he was raised
or ....it was the influences in his life
or .... he was disturbed

all of which are very likely subsets of the PC problem.

Why can't we, as a society, face up to the fact that there are some people who are truly evil, and nothing will ever fix the problem.

Nobody says it's the guns' fault that the guy was a psycho. It's the guns' fault that - being a psycho - he was ABLE TO KILL CHILDREN. As the case in China shows us in direct contrast, when guns are not available, the children mostly survive the psychos.

Intellectual dishonesty makes you look fat.

[Rolyo85]

Except gun control doesn't -- studies have shown that. Gun control accomplishes almost nothing.

False.

[Rolyo85]

Are you saying that the man who killed all those people wasn't evil?
Pure evil cannot be fixed. Get over it and get on with your life.

The irony! It burns!

[Rolyo85]

No, because rights cannot be put to a vote -- that's tyranny of the majority.

A vote to take away guns has no validity, any more than a vote to prohibit the use of certain words or the practice of certain religions.

False, actually. The constitution allows for amending. And in point of fact, your right to bear arms could just be limited to non-firearms "arms", and it would still exist ^_^

And nobody here would be happy if the people of the US passed a "one man, one woman" amendment, but we know for a fact the US people have evolved to the point where not enough of them would support it to put it there. Are you afraid that enough people have gotten over the cowboy mentality?

Also, democracy IS the tyranny of the majority.

[Rolyo85]

You can't ban a right on the basis of a concern. Telling others what they can or cannot do is not a right.

Even if this "right" is again and again proven to be harmful to society, and this concern is proven again and again to be even more legitimate than Tod Akin's rape?

[bankside]

Given that the Constitution says it's for promoting the general welfare, the Second Amendment's desire to allow all citizens to be armed must have been considered a way to promote the general welfare. So there can't really be much constitutional objection to working within the meaning of the Second to make sure it's contributing to promoting the general welfare.

It's not valid because it proclaims itself to be so. It's valid because it has more, or less, noble and workable principles. If the reasons why the second amendment might serve the general welfare have been forgotten, or are incoherent today, it is a pale defence indeed to say "it must once have been worked out -who are we to question?"

You can't ban a right on the basis of a concern. Telling others what they can or cannot do is not a right.

It isn't a right, it is a class of potentially outdated technology with negative unintended consequences that can be quantified and weighed against the successes that might exist in supporting the right. The right to security of the person is not being challenged, only the means. And if constitutions are intended to serve the general welfare, they should be (and are) filled with provisions enabling prevention. Forward-looking insight is not an arbitrary concern being imposed.

I think the whole problem here is the extent, even the existence, of geographical nations. Certainly citizens have the right ti form a community within which, by agreement of all, there will be no weapons -- after all, the freedom to do a thing implies the freedom to not do it, or it's not freedom but tyranny. But such an agreement cannot be handed down from generation to generation by coercion; all must be free to choose. Large geographical nations aren't conducive to such liberty.

But my choice is to live in a community which is geographically far removed from people you'd consider to be acceptable gun owning neighbours. And your latter point seems to call for frequent re-ratification of the constitution in its entirety at least every few years if not upon attainment of the age of majority. And what then of the limits placed on mob rule by a republic rather than a pure democracy?

[TX-Beau]

Actually Kuli in our country all of our rights hinge on whether or not there is a compelling public interest to circumvent them. Free speech, religious practice, incarceration, regulations on workplace safety, FDA, EPA, the whole apparatus of the Judicial System. your claim that the right to bear arms is inviolable is just bunk.

We are NOT arguing if the government has the right to regulate IT ALREADY DOES, we're just arguing the level of regulation.

Let's repeat that,

THE FED ALREADY REGULATES FIREARMS

Just like the gov regulates all our other rights, you can try to dispute that, but if you do, you reveal yourself as a myopic partisan making shit up to hide from it.

Plus somewhere you said to arm grade school teachers so they can go all Rambo on evil crazy people with assault rifles (yes you did, armed teachers will not deter one crazy, because of the crazy) - yeah I can see my Mom and her Baptist Ladies Bridge Club - who all teach elementary school being real useful in that respect.

That suggestion is BEYOND THE PALE, idiotic, stupid lunacy of the first order and stinks of zealot craziness.

It's insanity to tell people that. Yes it is.

[JayHawk]

This is a valid observation understanding that none of us is equipped with the moral authority to be able judge others,

Every human behing, if he or she is honest with themselves, goes though life making instant assessments (judgments, if you must) of other people, moral authority notwithstanding.

For any of you that doubt this I would suggest a book my Malcolm Gladwell called "Blink". It describes and examines this ability in explicit detail. Now that man is reduced to making decision that are not life and death he has become befuddled often with the inability to trust instinct and make a decision. Your gut is usually right or at least enough to make a decent call.

Except gun control doesn't -- studies have shown that. Gun control accomplishes almost nothing.

OTOH, mental illness control could: just change the NICS so people noted as dangerous by public institutions such as colleges will get reported and their names flagged. And get them free help.

Actually Kuli to be fair... and you are very scientifically fair most times. To be fair the studies in the US simply prove that the lack of weapons in a small area does not defeat crime if one can cross a border and get whatever they desire. So control would work if it was nationwide.

That said we all know the second amendment is not going anywhere. SO....

Lets talk about what we agree on.

Metal health is necessary for a functioning society. SO therefore access should be available to all. Access cannot be guaranteed by a free market society. It does not work we are living proof it does not provide for all. SO therefore just as common rules on the road or common rights to all free of discrimination is necessary to be enforced by the government so is a fair healthcare system.

This case proves that mental health IS NOT the panacea that will solve the issue. You can also not legislate intelligence or eradicate stupidity or evil or criminal behavior. SO you must mitigate the ability of those with nefarious intentions to access weapons with a massive capacity to do harm. You still will not eliminate all of the most resourceful but you can reduce the propensity for large scale events.

Steps in "gun Control" which always is interpreted as taking guns away from all is not difficult at all. First make ALL purchasers acquire a background check. Additionally make a shooters license that allows ALL person who will fire a weapon required to be background checked. Nancy Lanza could not have irresponsibly taught her insane son to shoot at a range IF that was required. Enhancing the NICS system to have input from multiple sources including all metal health professionals would be a key addition. They would require immunity from lawsuits for mental health professionals. That would prevent those feeling they have improperly been rendered weaponless or those who have been victimized from making the law unusable with the help of money grubbing trial lawyers. There should also be a fair and easily enumerated process for re-acquiring your second amendment rights again IF you prove you are no threat.

Finally, there is no realistic purpose that massive capacity magazines serve. It would stop those with a temporary break from relaity taking the moment to cause great damage. AT the same time it is a double edged sword. Just watch any shooting competition and you will realize quickly for those that are determined you don't even need a magazine to shoot at an amazing rate of fire, reloading all along the way.

[Kulindahr]

Of course the only person who would be able to definitively answer these questions is dead. For all we know, Lanza's mother may well have tried. We know that she never let anyone in the house, and that she never told people about her relationship with her son. Not surprising, as people are averse to airing out such dirty laundry.

How could she have tried when there's no such structure in place?

[xbuzzerx]

It is the sad and quite related situation. Even if the shooter in CT had all the access in the world to mental health care as CT is an insured state for those without and his parents had covering insurance and he was in contact with help.

The sad part of all of this is the fact that no matter how much blame we place at the feet of mental illness there is one party in America who does not believe Americans -- all Americans -- should have easy access to health care. It is a free giveaway to the layabouts in America whose votes are bought with gifts from the government.

So how do you propose the loverly solution to the mental health crisis be implemented Jack?

There is a process already there for everyone to have healthcare ...including mental health care. Except one party is continually blocking it's implementation. perhaps if that one party pulled its head out of its ass they could help develop a world class health care system that benefits all - especially those in need.

then maybe we can give the new system cute little labels like PC or Obamacare.

Yup.

I was consistently ignored in the other thread when I brought up multiple times that the VA Tech shooter was GETTING HELP, and was on prescription anti-psychotic medications. Then he went off them--- as mentally ill people all too frequently do. He was away at college, he wasn't really close with his roommate, so who was to say he was suddenly dangerous or acting differently from usual?

Somehow waving our hands over a crystal ball and saying "let there be mental healthcare" is not going to comprehensively address this problem when someone with a psychotic mental diagnosis can simply walk into any store and purchase guns without any checks of any kind in way too much of this country.