The new horizon of gun control, Part 2. The black hole of mental health.

posted at 8:51 am on December 19, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Yesterday, we looked at A Violent Society as one element of the new gun control push under the banner of eliminating mass shootings. Today we’ll consider the second element of the three prong argument being used to define this wider action ostensibly intended to curtail – or at least cut back on – such acts of mayem: the sad state of mental health care in the United States. But first, as promised, a brief update on the treacherous, shifting sands which lie under the feet of any 2nd Amendment supporters who are taking part in the “reasonable discourse” between the sides following last Friday’s tragedy.

I began this series in part by featuring comments made in a lengthy statement on the subject by MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. For purposes of demonstrating the rapid “evolution” in attitudes taking place, I’d first like to focus on a different, brief snippet from Monday’s discussion. (Emphasis mine.)

But the symbols of that ideological struggle have since been shattered by the harvest sown from violent, mind-numbing video games and gruesome Hollywood movies that dangerously desensitizes those who struggle with mental health challenges. Add military-styled weapons and high capacity magazines to that equation and tragedy can never be too far behind.

That was, as I said, Monday morning. The discussion was focused on “military styled weapons” (referring to the Bushmaster or other, similar AR-15 style rifles) and “high capacity magazines” such as the ones which hold 30 or more rounds. Fast forward to to later that day and the vocal proponents of the Left were already up with this:

Fifty-four percent of Americans support stricter gun control laws, while a little more than half are in favor of a ban on semi-automatic handguns, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday.

That’s a shift from “military style” weapons to a semi-automatic handgun in less than a day. That’s one of the most common and useful choices for home defense, sport target shooting and more, usable by both genders and people of less than Olympian build. And suddenly it’s being put on the same shelf as the real “military style” weapons which purportedly spurred this. If you were still somehow feeling sanguine about this entire, “Oh, we don’t want to take all the guns”, and you’re not getting nervous yet, you should be. I received a very serious response on Twitter from one gun control activist who answered my question of which weapons should be banned. I was told, you can have a muzzle loading rifle. That’s what the constitution gives you a right to.

So when Michael Bloomberg goes out on the trail, as he did on Morning Joe yesterday, and assures us that he’s not interested in taking your guns, I, for one, am not willing to believe him for a minute. For more on this, read Matt Lewis on how Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.

But with that, let’s move on to today’s topic.

The Black Hole of Mental Health

There are a variety of thus far anecdotal reports claiming that the Newtown shooter had “mental problems” of some sort. Monday morning quarterbacks psychologists have attributed it to everything from Asperger’s Syndrome to manic depression. And perhaps this will turn out to be true, though we would need to hear from someone with direct knowledge of his medical history, treatment and medication. Conversely, it may turn out that there was a lot of conflict in his family and he was prone to anger issues and loud outbursts. We don’t know yet, and we may never know.

But there is no question that there are many, many Americans suffering from severe mental health issues. And while treatment for at least some maladies is available, not everyone can afford it and perhaps even more don’t seek it out because of the societal stigmas attached. I will also stipulate that there are quite likely a vast number of individuals who are more borderline in their imbalances, skimming along under the surface, neither seeking nor receiving any professional help.

Is there any one of us who “wants crazy people to have guns?” I would certainly hope not. But just as with yesterday’s question about violence in movies, games and society in general, we should feel fully justified in asking precisely what remedy is currently being offered and how some sort of gun control legislation contributes to a solution.

Even in the case of those with proven records of mental illness, violent (but not yet criminal) behavior and significant treatment programs, there is an uncomfortable question as to precisely who will be gathering and tracking this information and how it will be disseminated to firearms distributors. I’m aware that in a number of states, including New York, the courts can issue an injunction regarding individuals who have committed acts of violence and declare them a risk to themselves or others. Such individuals could certainly wind up on “a list” without upsetting many people. But are we now to consider adding a speed lane for entrance to such a list and lowering the bar for membership?

Is this a list we want the government keeping? Is this a list we want being distributed to the kid at Dicks’ Sporting Goods, popping up on his computer screen when one of your relatives attempts to purchase a box of ammo? I’m not saying there isn’t a problem to be addressed here, but these are serious questions which deserve an answer before we leap into some legislative solution.

And what of the vastly greater number of people who might be unstable enough to snap at some point? What of the people I referenced above who may or may not have some lurking instability, but have yet to ever commit a violent crime? We all know somebody with a bad temper, a tendency to speak loudly or are quick to anger. Is each and every one of them now suspect and undeserving of their constitutionally assured rights? We also deserve to know how the people engaging in this “reasonable conversation” today propose to identify and act upon such individuals. I suppose we could flood state and local police offices with reports from friends, neighbors, co-workers and relatives every time somebody notes “something odd” about Uncle Frank. But does Frank now show up on a list someplace, even if the report was made by his brother-in-law who is still angry about Frank’s dog doing his business on their lawn?

Returning to the Scarborough clip linked above, when his colleague reads reports of possible mental health issues on the part of the shooter, relating this to the fact that the mother had legally purchased weapons in the home, we hear this.

Joe Scarborough: I don’t understand. I just… don’t… understand this part of the story…

Mika: Why would you have those guns? You can have them legally, but with a child that is challenging, that perhaps has a disorder of some type, by all accounts he had Asperger’s or something else

If nothing else, this should demonstrate how easy it would be for some all encompassing lists to sweep up people and families who may not benefit from any such intrusion.

I think you can sense the general theme developing here. Mental health issues are a very real and serious problem in the United States, and certainly more could be done to help the afflicted. But the moment you attempt to address even a portion of this problem by crafting a legislating “solution” which will ensure that the afflicted can’t buy a gun, you’ve opened up a massive can of worms in terms of our societal liberties.

Related:
The new horizon of gun control, Part 1. A Violent Society
MSNBC host Chuck Todd on gun rights: “That’s a different America”
Slippery Slopes are Sometimes Real.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

If I may, I believe you are missing an important element here. As the liberals are saying:

Mika: Why would you have those guns? You can have them legally, but with a child that is challenging, that perhaps has a disorder of some type, by all accounts he had Asperger’s or something else

Notice they are not saying that YOU have mental illness, but someone in your family. This is important to the overall picture. Liberals are trying to say If your family contains ONE person with mental illness, ALL family members are not permitted banned firearms. This is the same as when in Soviet Russia one person went to the Gulag’s, the rest of the family was under suspicion. It is the curtailing of rights via the actions of another.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not about target shooting, sports shooting or even criminal self defense. The 2nd is specifically about shooting Government officials till either the behavior of said officials changes or the Government is brought down by revoluti0n. We are now getting a measure of how much said officials are interested in preserving our Rights in this matter. What they hope to do is a ban through association.

Bulletchaser on December 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Spoken like a true lib, up. You do realize that deinstitutionalization corresponded with a sharp up-swing in violent crimes, right? That is a settled truth, not open to debate or interpretation.

You lunks who are worried about Soviet-style punitive psychiatry might as well just come out and say it: You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette, right? Isn’t that what this is all about? 20 dead children are worth it to make sure that folks like Adam Lanza can live in freedom, despite nasty little tragedies like Sandy Hook./

/ptooey

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I lib? Waiting on more answers makes me a lib? Umm okay.

And did I say anything about the death of the children not being wrong? No. Keep grasping.

And as for the treatment of those who are mentally ill or those who are disabled.. maybe you need to go read about what happened in our Country concerning people who were put into these asylums and what happened to them.

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

While I will agree with you that the clearing out of the institutions has not been a success in many ways, I must tell you that there were definitely some good outcomes. I personally had a relative that had been in a state institution from the early 50′s, she constantly threatened suicide and violence against others. She even underwent electric shock therapy. Now maybe it was just the luck of time and the evolution of medication but she came out in the late 60′s and had a truly great life. She was a registered nurse and remarried.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM

The problem with that theory is that unless the person with the mental illness has had a recorded run in with the law, it falls under physician/patient confidentiality. At least I hope that after the VA Tech massacre that law enforcement is less likely to plea bargain on these incidents.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, they would have to self-report the fact someone found them mentally ill, or may be considered ill. Slap huge fines if the evidence after a shooting reveals the other members in the household purchased a weapon despite knowing someone in their home was nuts.

It wouldn’t stop someone that just snapped and had no prior history, but with a kid like Lanza? Yeah maybe the woman would think twice about buying a gun if a law like this was in place.

Still, guns don’t kill many people compared to other causes of death.

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Fine…as long as Asperger’s isn’t considered to be a ‘mental illness’. I have Asperger’s-and I own a weapon. I pray, pray, PRAY that I will never have to use my gun for ANYTHING but target shooting. That said…I’m all of 5’2. If someone were to break into my home…my gun would be a great equalizer. The second amendment-and Texas’s ‘Castle Doctrine’-give me the right to defend me and mine.
If a situation like that ever comes up(And I really REALLY hope that it never does)…I will.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Isn’t that what this is all about? 20 dead children are worth it to make sure that folks like Adam Lanza can live in freedom, despite nasty little tragedies like Sandy Hook./

/ptooey

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

so what is your body count for freedom? Is 10 kids too much for freedom? Is nothing worth freedom? How about the millions of people who gave their lives for freedom on the battlefield was their sacrifice for nothing? Are their lives less important than those 20 children? Freedom is messy is chaos but like capitalism it is the best system devised by man in an impefect world. And the threat of government overreach and the loss of freedom is very real during times of emotional stress. the left are using those 20 children as posterboards on why we should give up our freedom and you are falling for it.

Those 20 children are not dead only because of a crazy. they are just as much dead because people gave up thier freedom 20 years ago and enacted laws taking away lawful adults the ability to defend themselves from the crazies in “protected zones” that were not protected. the government enacted gun free zones then did nothing to protect those zones.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Notice they are not saying that YOU have mental illness, but someone in your family. This is important to the overall picture. Liberals are trying to say If your family contains ONE person with mental illness, ALL family members are not permitted banned firearms. This is the same as when in Soviet Russia one person went to the Gulag’s, the rest of the family was under suspicion. It is the curtailing of rights via the actions of another.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not about target shooting, sports shooting or even criminal self defense. The 2nd is specifically about shooting Government officials till either the behavior of said officials changes or the Government is brought down by revoluti0n. We are now getting a measure of how much said officials are interested in preserving our Rights in this matter. What they hope to do is a ban through association.

Bulletchaser on December 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Hey, they do not have to keep that person in their home if they want to buy a gun. If this bothers you, why is it OK for the government to ban prisoners from having guns whilst in prison, or felons once they get out on da street.

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM

In my fantasy world, these people might have to be institutionalized but they would be places where they can develop their usually high intellect for positive things. Most of these folks are antisocial anyway but it shouldn’t be a prison. Without any actual knowledge, their minds appear to be a living He!! to me and I am not sure they know any different.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM

There is a rumored CDC report that says that wading pools kill more children but we don’t see any ban on those.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I was told, you can have a muzzle loading rifle. That’s what the constitution gives you a right to.

Jazz, whoever said that is an idiot. The Framers gave every citizen the right to have THE SAME WEAPON as those then in military service, ie, “a muzzle loader”.

In the 1800′s, THE GOVERNMENT routinely sold excess and outdated MILITARY FIREARMS to citizens. In the 1930′s, THE GOVERNMENT sold the Model 1903 rifle, THEIR MAIN BATTLE RIFLE AT THE TIME, to any citizen that was a member of an NRA recognized gun club. In the 1960′s, THE GOVERNMENT would sell the M1 Garand to citizens under the same criteria. The M1 was still in military service at the time, and was used by the National Guard well into the early 1970′s.

GarandFan on December 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The kid at VA Tech bought his stuff legally and plenty of people knew he was looney tunes. There won’t be a perfect answer, we will just try to do better. Second set of doors (windowless) between the office and the classrooms might work in some schools.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Don’t worry about the kid working at Dick’s finding out about your mental health or anyone else in your family, they stopped selling the ARs, at least until a decent interval has passed and they find out that people still want to buy them. Never been to a Dick’s and now won’t bother going. At the end of the day, the AR which comes in black or camo and .17 or .223, still only shoots one bullet at a time requiring a trigger pull each time the same as a revolver. I wouldn’t want to use either one if I was planning an assault.

Kissmygrits on December 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

if we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn’t be discussing this.

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM

EXCLUSIVE: Fear of being committed may have caused Connecticut gunman to snap

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FVzNKEKjtted-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FVzHsCKx

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Amen!

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM

The ability to get a person with a MI declared a danger to themselves or others is challenging. Certain criteria needs to be met, even if your gut is telling you that this person is absolutely dangerous. If they don’t meet the criteria, your helpless. Those with a mental illness have rights, period. Further, even if at one time a person is considered dangerous, this is transitory. They can have their meds adjusted, get a little counseling, and then be deemed fit enough to roam the streets once again until they decompensate. It’s a cycle.

My point is, the mental health arena is fraught with problems. There is no blame to be laid for this, it’s simply the nature of the beast. To try to solve gun violence as it relates to those with a MI, well, good luck with that.

LetsBfrank on December 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on December 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Just an idea…Some on the Left are trying to blame autism and Asperger’s, to make excuses for failed liberal policies. You’re great and excellent, to be sure. But some things are best left among friends and family.

Liberal policies and practices led to the murders at Sandy Hook. The last thing liberals want is to be discovered that they’re to blame. And they are.

Never in my studies of mass murder and serial homicide has someone with any form of autism bee accused for simply being autistic. I expect that liberals will “want to take a look” at that.

Joke ‘em if they can’t take a f*ck.

Liberals have never once been right on anything.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM

At the end of the day, the AR which comes in black or camo and .17 or .223, still only shoots one bullet at a time requiring a trigger pull each time the same as a revolver. I wouldn’t want to use either one if I was planning an assault.

Kissmygrits on December 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM

This obsession with firing rate is a problem. Even if the feds decided that we could only have black power it would not stop spree killers. The guy had 20 or more minutes of time to do his killing. I have a 50 cal black powder long gun which I can load and fire at least once every minute. I have a friend that can do it in about 30 seconds. Sure a few brave/stupid people could try to rush me but my 50 cal makes a really effective club.
What the gun grabbers fail to see is that this country was liberated using flintlocks.

Frank Enstine on December 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The second amendment-and Texas’s ‘Castle Doctrine’-give me the right to defend me and mine.
If a situation like that ever comes up (And I really REALLY hope that it never does)…I will.

annoyinglittletwerp
on December 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM

.
Boy, I dunno. That sounds pretty “right-wing extremist” to me.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM

This may have been mentioned but…….
Remember how Palin was abused because she allow her defective child to be born. If the libs can connect any form of mental health with being dangerous to society they have their perfect little argument for mandatory abortion for what they consider defectives.

Just think. Maybe they could someday figure out what makes a person conservative and just abort them as a danger to society.

Then again I may be thinking to much on it.

Frank Enstine on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Just think. Maybe they could someday figure out what makes a person conservative and just abort them as a danger to society.

Then again I may be thinking to much on it.

Frank Enstine on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Probably. But look for doctors right here refusing to disclose ‘political genes’ if this happens. We already have doctors in foreign nations who refuse to tell parents the gender of their child, because baby girls are worthless in their barbaric culture.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM

listens2glenn on December 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Very.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 19, 2012 at 11:35 AM

It’s kind of odd that physicians must shield these people when you consider that for a while pediatricians were asking children if there were guns in their homes.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Frank Enstine on December 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Only liberals claim ‘right’ to decide what is ‘defective’.

We Conservatives do not. Every child is precious, as I expect you know.Liberals, on the other hand, are always making gradations.

And libs dare say we are messed in the head?

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I’ve been an active, outspoken conservative since before I could vote.
Liberals don’t scare me.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The “muzzle loader” or “musket” argument seems to be a favorite out there right now.

Just remind whoever says it that by the same logic, the 1st amendment wouldn’t protect anything unless it was written with a quill & ink, an old-fashioned printing press, or spoken.

That shuts most reasonable people up. The truly diehard statists though, just stare at you blankly and ask, “So?”. Scary.

As far as guns and mental illness go, there are definitely some mental illnesses (and some medications) out there that are so severe that you don’t want them mixing with guns.

But you can’t fix that even with a ban on gun sales to those people, as we saw with Newtown. Also, mental illness for these purposes would have to be very narrowly and objectively defined, not some open-ended “oh hey this guy doesn’t agree with me, clearly he’s delusional” type of thing. Finally, as others have noted, there is the confidentiality issue.

rightmind on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Isn’t that what this is all about? 20 dead children are worth it to make sure that folks like Adam Lanza can live in freedom, despite nasty little tragedies like Sandy Hook./

/ptooey

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

So are you saying a million aborted fetuses are worth it to make sure liberals can have ‘freedom of choice’?

ghostwalker1 on December 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I haven’t heard any talk about gun LOCKS… might that not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings?

Khun Joe on December 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

..funny you should mention that. Out here in The People’s Republik, a state legislator, senator Yee is headig back to the buffet for another helping of gun control (courtesy CalGuns):

Yee also announced that he would introduce legislation to require yearly registration and background checks for gun ownership and another bill that will require that all guns have a locked trigger and be stored in a locked container.

Senator Yee and his staff apparently don’t read Supreme Court decisions like D.C. v. Heller, the landmark Alan Gura victory which established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and overturned a number of D.C.’s gun control regulations, including a locked storage requirement.

The War Planner on December 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Speaking of black holes of mental health, Joe Biden has been appointed by the President to address the problem of gun violence.

Early reports have Joe inviting an elite group of sumo wrestlers to the White House as he thought he heard the President say ‘gut violence.’

LetsBfrank on December 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

The “muzzle loader” or “musket” argument seems to be a favorite out there right now.

Just remind whoever says it that by the same logic, the 1st amendment wouldn’t protect anything unless it was written with a quill & ink, an old-fashioned printing press, or spoken.

rightmind on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

..God I love it when their logic is turned around on them. By the way, you might also mention to them that black powder weapons — even replicas patterned after a firearm manufactured before 1898 like the flintlock — are not subject to FEDERAL firearms law. Depending on your state laws, you may mail order them and have them shipped directly to your house and not worry about federal background checks, etc.

The War Planner on December 19, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Speaking of black holes of mental health, Joe Biden has been appointed by the President to address the problem of gun violence.
..
LetsBfrank on December 19, 2012 at 12:03 PM

..and RGR is up $2.50 this morning.

The War Planner on December 19, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I’ve been an active, outspoken conservative since before I could vote.
Liberals don’t scare me.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Liberals never scare me, either. Instead, they make me sick. And when I feel sick, I become angry.

For whatever it might be worth, you’re in my Cool Book.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM

It’s not that big a can of worms. Review, due process, &c. with mandatory periodic review is protection enough.

SarahW on December 19, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Of course there is always overkill when it comes to gun owning-you don’t need can 8 inch sp howitzer to go rabbit hunting even if you could afford one.This, however, is mostly just an excise. The first step in disarming the populace is to scream OVRKILL! on current weapons’ capabilities.Phase two will be total disarmament (of the law abiding).

The Democrats most loyal constituency over the years has been the street criminal. What’s a poor street criminal to do if his intended victim is armed to the teeth and saws him in half? A poor street criminal can lose sleep and even develop zits just thinking about this.

Therefore the disarmament procedure will ONLY involve LICENSED gun owners-leaving the street thugs fully armed. This will leave the Democrats’ most loyal backers completely free to pistol whip grannies and stomp on old farts’ faces at their leisure without fear of retaliation. Now the zits will disappear.

MaiDee on December 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM

thatsafactjack

For those who may have missed it:

Adam Lanza Learned His Mother Was Preparing To Commit Him To A Mental Health Care Facility

Nancy Lanza knew her son, Adam Lanza, to be spiraling out of control. She could no longer manage him on her own. She had filed a petition with the courts for conservatorship so that she could have her son committed to a mental heath facility as an adult, against his will, so that he could get the care and treatment that he desperately needed.

Nancy Lanza had volunteered at the Sandy Hook school for several years, working with kindergarten children. Adam Lanza, in his delusional state, believed that his mother loved the school and the children at the school more than she loved him. He flew into a rage, and snapped. The first grade children who were killed were kindergartners whom Nancy Lanza had worked with last year. The principle and psychologist at Sandy Hook school were good friends of Nancy Lanza, and they were killed in the attack.

This is not an issue of gun law, gun control, or assault weapons bans. This is an issue of mental health care.

Adam Lanza needed intensive care and treatment at a mental health facility and his mother was trying to get that for him. Unfortunately, the ACLU and others sued the state of Connecticut a few years ago, and the result was legislation that makes it far more difficult, and far more of a lengthy process, to have an adult committed for care and treatment in Connecticut.

We don’t need to discuss gun control. We need to discuss giving the mentally ill effective care and treatment in a timely manner.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I haven’t heard any talk about gun LOCKS… might that not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings?

Khun Joe on December 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

That’s a smart, original idea, Khun Joe. I think it could very well have prevented these killings.

Of course, it could be argued that the mother, if she’d thought about it, should have bought a lock box and kept the guns there. I imagine that does occur in many homes and would have a beneficial effect.

Possibly the main reason your idea hasn’t been suggested is that stealing guns from mom and then going on a shooting spree doesn’t happen all that often. Most of the gun restriction laws being proposed by liberals are intended to make it harder to buy a gun, not steal a gun. This particular case had many anomalous elements from which it’s hard to draw all-purpose conclusions.

Burke on December 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Considering the recent rulings by SCOTUS, just how much can these idiots do?

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

There’s no hope for the rectally challenged.
Gun free equates to “shooting gallery.
They will pass their new laws and regs on guns and be shocked when the next “unexpected” shooting happens.
Bet the first one is in Chicago, Detroit, or NYC….but that’s just population control.
Brevik shot 72 people in the land of no guns….
They confiscated all the guns in Australia…how did that work out?
The UK…another shining example of stupidity.
In places with OPEN CARRY and CONCEALED CARRY there are far fewer shooting events. Seems like the fear of dying restrains all but the most insane from “acting stupidly”.

dirtengineer on December 19, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Barack Obama is “Person of the Year” at Time.

Celebrate idiocy by hue. It’s the ultimate form of racism, to expect so little of the first not even half black president.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Barack Obama is “Person of the Year” at Time.

Celebrate idiocy by hue. It’s the ultimate form of racism, to expect so little of the first not even half black president.

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:31 PM

“Architect of the New America” … think I’m going to be sick

Haha, Morsi made the short list. What a joke. These idiots have no idea.

rightmind on December 19, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Liberals never scare me, either. Instead, they make me sick. And when I feel sick, I become angry.

For whatever it might be worth, you’re in my Cool Book.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 12:14 PM

liberals scare the hell out of me. No other group in human history has been responsibile for more deaths, mass exucutions, and human misery. Be it Stalin’s purges, Pol Pot’s killing fields or little liberal stupiud feel good polices like gun free zones or a ban on DDT or even their polices on diet causing millions of people to die from heart diease and dibeates all their polices lead to the same end point. they all destroy freedom and man’s ability to protect themselves against the evil and crazy and power hungry in the world.

All Liberal polices lead to death and destruction.

Anyone who isn’t afraid of liberals have never picked up a history book or doesn’t understand what is going on.

And no the courrupt GOPe isn’t the answer either. They are simply liberal lite with the same outcome in the long run.

Give be liberty or give me death.

Be afraid of the liberals be very afraid they are winning battle after battle and if they win final victory our world our way of life will be gone. And in its place our children will be poorer, less safe and less free.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Schadenfreude on December 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I agree. Keep posting that. (:

SparkPlug on December 19, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Well, obviously, this is all a “pretty big f’ing deal” since Genius Joe Biden has been put in charge of finding a solution to gun violence in our country.

On the upside, though, I do look forward to his demonstration of the evil of a semi-automatic handgun on the floor of the Senate. It’s been a while since I saw someone publicly perforate their own Florsheim.

C-SPAN ratings through the roof, people.

M240H on December 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I think the proven violence thing might be workable, they’ve got a process for restraining orders, that could be worked into databases for background checks. It wouldn’t have stopped this one, he had no record.

But I’m not sure I’d push it. I can see the Left slavering for a chance to implement – they could put a couple million soldiers on a list as not able to buy guns. Potential terrorists you know, and a lot have PTSD.

I say arm the teachers in the way the pilots got armed: volunteered, screened, trained. That won’t fly, makes too much sense (liberalism is a mental disorder, sigh). So budget a couple armed security guards per school.

John_G on December 19, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I haven’t heard any talk about gun LOCKS… might that not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings?

Khun Joe

Maybe, maybe not. Do door locks keep people from stealing cars, or breaking into homes? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Certainly not if he knew where the key was. And with 2 minutes and a Google search, you’ll learn that gun locks are pretty easy to remove even without the key. I’d say they probably are not going to be very affective against an intelligent adult with time to figure out a way around them, which he had plenty of.

Meanwhile, do we know that gun locks weren’t being used, or a gun safe? IF he had such easy access to his mother’s guns, why did he bother with trying to buy his own?

Since no one in the media is mentioning this, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that she WAS using one or the other, or both, and they aren’t mentioning it because they didn’t work, which would conflict with their anti-gun agenda. The last thing they want getting out is info that weakens their argument.

xblade on December 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I cannot believe the conservative movement is falling for this. Don’t you see that the mental health thing is being used as a proxy to limit the second amendment rights? If you don’t believe me, you haven’t been paying much attention to the news on the matter lately. It has been all around the place in the mainstream media. American psychiatry has been going through the renewal of their diagnostic book, the DSM, so called DSM-5, that has been written with an expansive approach so that up to 20% of Americans could be labelled as mentally ill for eating too much (no kidding) or not recovering fast enough from the loss of a love one. Do you really want to give psychiatrists the power to decide who’s going to be allowed to have his/her second amendment rights taken away from them? Please Google Allen Frances (the chief editor of the previous version) and his criticism of the current practice of psychiatry. There is a reason why psychiatry has been used by totalitarian regimes. When you give the power to a few unelected bureaucrats to decide who’s sane and who’s insane, we are a step closer to tyranny. O’Connor v. Donaldson

May the State confine the mentally ill merely to ensure them a living standard superior to that they enjoy in the private community? That the State has a proper interest in providing care and assistance to the unfortunate goes without saying. But the mere presence of mental illness does not disqualify a person from preferring his home to the comforts of an institution. Moreover, while the State may arguably confine a person to save him from harm, incarceration is rarely if ever a necessary condition for raising the living standards of those capable of surviving safely in freedom, on their own or with the help of family or friends. May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person’s physical liberty. In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. …

Those protections against the state exist for a reason. As O’Reilly said on Monday, from what we know, the killer had not given a single sign that he was about to do what he did.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I haven’t heard any talk about gun LOCKS… might that not have prevented the Sandy Hook killings?

Khun Joe on December 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM
That’s a smart, original idea, Khun Joe. I think it could very well have prevented these killings.

Of course, it could be argued that the mother, if she’d thought about it, should have bought a lock box and kept the guns there. I imagine that does occur in many homes and would have a beneficial effect.

Possibly the main reason your idea hasn’t been suggested is that stealing guns from mom and then going on a shooting spree doesn’t happen all that often. Most of the gun restriction laws being proposed by liberals are intended to make it harder to buy a gun, not steal a gun. This particular case had many anomalous elements from which it’s hard to draw all-purpose conclusions.

Burke on December 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

It is a good thought, but I am inclined to think it would not have helped. In fact, Mrs. Lanza may well have had such security. The boy may have had access to either combination and/or key.
In any case, given the boy’s instability, those guns should have NEVER been in the house. NEVER. Not to speak ill of the dead, but the mother knew he was not well and failed to protect, not only herself, but all of society from him.
It was a bomb just waiting to explode.

Jabberwock on December 19, 2012 at 1:09 PM

@ Liam

That’s the new liberal game: flintlocks only.

Turn around and ask, “If they had our kinds of weapons back then, would they have made exceptions? If you think so, prove it. Because I have The Federalist to show their reasoning.”

The lib argument against guns is the same as saying the only pot they can legally smoke has to be organic and grown on a farm, using only sunlight and not those metal halide lights used in greenhouses.

They would never sit for that.

Ask those liberals if the Government could freely censor and or require prior governmental approval of everything broadcast on the radio, shown on TV, put on film/record/CD/DVD or posted on the internet – as none of those technologies were available when the Bill of Rights were approved.

Similarly, could the government ban pharmacutical birth control, as it hadn’t been invented then?

krome on December 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

DSM 5 Is Guide Not Bible—Ignore Its Ten Worst Changes

This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound. My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public – be skeptical and don’t follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication. Just ignore the ten changes that make no sense.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

As for all this new found concern for the mentally ill, does anyone know how many gun murders are carried out by those who are obviously mentally ill to the point they should be committed?

xblade on December 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I cannot believe the conservative movement is falling for this. Don’t you see that the mental health thing is being used as a proxy to limit the second amendment rights?

p_incorrect

I agree. It’s pretty sad to see our side fall victim to the do-something disease that always infects the left after every tragedy under the sun. They are seeking perfection in an imperfect world filled with fallible human beings, and if they aren’t careful, their desire to fix things is only going to make them worse.

xblade on December 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I think the proven violence thing might be workable, they’ve got a process for restraining orders, that could be worked into databases for background checks. It wouldn’t have stopped this one, he had no record.

I hope you aren’t advocating that the issuance of a restraining order is reason to prohibit purchase of guns (although some liberal and moronic judges think so). Remember, these are things that are often used by librul, money and children grabbing, women to put the man at a disadvantage in a court proceeding. Everyone knows that men are bad bad bad and should be restrained. I would hate that someone would not be adjudged as not being able to buy a gun because of one po’d female. I think that if a restraining order would work, it is probably not needed. If it doesn’t work it is probably not needed. I’m getting in over myhead here. I think I’ll quit while I’m behind.

Old Country Boy on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I agree. It’s pretty sad to see our side fall victim to the do-something disease that always infects the left after every tragedy under the sun. They are seeking perfection in an imperfect world filled with fallible human beings, and if they aren’t careful, their desire to fix things is only going to make them worse.

xblade on December 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Yeah. Should be preemptively lock all black males living in the inner cities given that they are a disproportionate share of all killings that happen in the US. What about all Muslims of Saudi origin given that Muslims of Saudi origin caused 9/11. I think that the conservative movement is doing itself a disservice not addressing the real issue here: moral relativism and the lack of moral values injected by the left in the last 30/40 years. They are trying to scapegoat on everybody else and, if we let them, they will use psychiatry to restrict our second amendment rights. You had a fight with your spouse? You are a risk, no guns for you. As the previous link said,

1) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM 5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder- a puzzling decision based on the work of only one research group.

So be ready pals, be ready.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I suspect something somewhat more sinister coming…

Keep in mind how many academic studies have been done over the past 10-15 years implying that a conservative political philosophy is itself a form of mental illness.

See how often studies like that get brought up if the Left decides to emphasize restricting the access people with mental illness have to guns.

JimLennon on December 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

What if people who own guns and their guns are stolen, they are held accountable as well for any crimes committed??
Now obviously you make exceptions if the owner had the guns locked up in a safe and the criminal destroyed the safe to get at the guns, etc….

But kinda similar to how you can be held responsible for some neighborhood kid drowning in your pool if you don’t have a fence up and locked.

MityMaxx on December 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

But kinda similar to how you can be held responsible for some neighborhood kid drowning in your pool if you don’t have a fence up and locked. MityMaxx on December 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM

No. A gun in your nightstand is not an “attractive nuisance” like a pool with easy access.

Akzed on December 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I suspect something somewhat more sinister coming…

Keep in mind how many academic studies have been done over the past 10-15 years implying that a conservative political philosophy is itself a form of mental illness.

See how often studies like that get brought up if the Left decides to emphasize restricting the access people with mental illness have to guns.

JimLennon on December 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Indeed, and it’s really sad to see conservatives falling for it. Once they have in the books a law that says that those that the authors of psychiatric studies have the power to take away second amendment rights, we’ll all be affected. Psychiatry is not a science, it’s a pseudoscience at best. The left knows it and uses it to its advantage. It is very easy to produce any study that shows anything, from a psychological point of view, like that conservatism itself is a form of mental illness or that children raised by gays are perfectly fine.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Ironic that the same illiberals who’ll decry any discriminate action towards psychotics will call gon owners crazy and try to disarm us, ith no hesitation or respect for OUR RIGHTS.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:11 PM

There’s couple people here off their Haldol.

M240H on December 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Sorry, Jazz, but taking the position that it’s an ‘all or nothing’ situation with mental health care and connecting it directly to the Second Amendment is part of the reason that nothing has been done to adequately care for those suffering severe mental health issues.

A person with a temper, loud outbursts, doesn’t qualify, by any standards of the psychiatric profession, as mental illness or incapacity. This is an issue relating to coping mechanisms and skills, not mental illness. This is salient to the fact that we have tightly defined laws regarding proof of mental capacity in criminal cases. We regularly determine if someone like, say, Loughner, was of sound mind when they committed for which they are being tried.

There are clear psychiatric parameters, well established, for determining and defining mental illness, and the degree of impairment that the condition can generate under given conditions.

Simply leaving these people who do suffer from serious impairment of reason due to chronic and acute, well defined, mental illness is untenable. It will result in tragedy, both personal and societal.

In the era of ‘deinstitutionalization’ begun under JFK, wherein the majority of the mentally ill were discharged from mental health care facilities and relegated to manage their own care though local ‘clinics’ in order to save cost and end the deplorable conditions found in some state hospitals,the practice of individuals being able to easily and quickly have an inconvenient family member committed had to be addressed. Since then, thanks to the efforts of ACLU and others, it has become almost impossible to have an adult committed to hospitalized mental health care even if that person has a long history of violent episodes and a documented, acute and chronic,mental illness.

There must be a middle ground, wherein those who need supervised treatment and care can be placed in a facility where they will receive that care. If some of these individuals got that intervention in a timely manner, and received good quality care in a facility when they needed it, they might well be able to return to society and lead a normal life, rather than commit a violent crime and/or suicide.

It’s our duty, as a civilized society, to find that middle ground.

I’d also point out that the LEFT has as much reason to tread lightly and with caution on this issue as conservatives. Mental illness afflicts people of all political ideologies, can occur in any family, and at any time of life.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Why would that change anything? I will not be calling for gun control if a member of my family was killed. I would be calling for the scumbag’s head that used the gun to kill.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I’m not calling for gun control. I’m just directing that at the “Oh well. 9600 is a low number” crowd. We need to do something to address the circumstances that made Adam Lanza’s killing spree possible. I am not advocating, nor will I ever advocate, gun control as part of the solution. Gun control is part of the problem.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

4.2 per capita, 107th in the world.

I wonder if anyone has ever analyzed what percentage of murdered folk had criminal records and or drug / alcohol abuse history.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I really struggle with why people can’t grasp the simple solution to this, which is ban gun purchases to housholds where anyone has a mental illness. Simply put, it means restricting a household from purchasing or having a weapon when one member is mentally ill. No different than a felon. If the parents want a weapon, then perhaps they will press harder to have the mentally ill individual moved to a home or other such place where their actions can be monitored.

Duh.

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Moron, that’s denying the rights of the rest of the household without due process.

Not only that, you moron, but you CAN have firearms in a household containing a felon. The felon just can’t have access or possess.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Remember, these are things that are often used by librul, money and children grabbing, women to put the man at a disadvantage in a court proceeding. Everyone knows that men are bad bad bad and should be restrained. I would hate that someone would not be adjudged as not being able to buy a gun because of one po’d female.

Old Country Boy on December 19, 2012 at 1:23 PM

You make an excellent point. At the risk of going somewhat off topic, restraining orders, while well intentioned, are far too easily abused by, and I hate to say it, mostly women, as a strategy in custody battles. Perjury doesn’t exist in family court. One need merely suggest abuse and visitation is interrupted immediately for a full and lengthy investigation that can take months. But I digress.

This is the problem with too many laws – the unintended consequences become more widespread than the original problem.

LetsBfrank on December 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I really struggle with why people can’t grasp the simple solution to this, which is ban gun purchases to housholds where anyone has a mental illness. Simply put, it means restricting a household from purchasing or having a weapon when one member is mentally ill. No different than a felon. If the parents want a weapon, then perhaps they will press harder to have the mentally ill individual moved to a home or other such place where their actions can be monitored.

Duh.

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Yeah, duh. You are suggesting that, for example, someone who has been depressed due to a death in the family for 6 months or longer, and who has sought medical treatment for it, and now fits the criteria for Major Depressive Episode, should not be allowed to own a gun. Do you know how many people this includes?

Anyone who has ever lost someone would potentially not be able to own a gun. And just one unintended consequence is that regular folks who happened to be depressed for good reason will no longer willingly get help because they don’t want to be on the black list.

Indeed, if solutions were so easy, they would have already been implemented.

LetsBfrank on December 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM

There must be a middle ground, wherein those who need supervised treatment and care can be placed in a facility where they will receive that care. If some of these individuals got that intervention in a timely manner, and received good quality care in a facility when they needed it, they might well be able to return to society and lead a normal life, rather than commit a violent crime and/or suicide.

It’s our duty, as a civilized society, to find that middle ground.

I’d also point out that the LEFT has as much reason to tread lightly and with caution on this issue as conservatives. Mental illness afflicts people of all political ideologies, can occur in any family, and at any time of life.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM

You are talking from ignorance here, giving the psychiatric profession an accuracy it doesn’t have, which is why we have legal protection against its abuses.

Read this for instance, from a leftist website,

Nothing burns the critics worse than “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder,” a new diagnosis for kids 6 to 18 years old who three or more times a week have “temper outbursts that are grossly out of proportion in intensity or duration to the situation.” It actually started out as “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria” (tantrums, plus you feel bad) but got changed so as not to openly malign tantrums. But the diagnosis still focuses on them, and critics say it is so broad and baggy that it’s ridiculous—and dangerous. Duke University psychiatrist Allen Frances, who chaired the revision of DSM-IV in 2001, says the DMDD diagnosis “will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder.” In a recent blog post at Huffington Post, Frances put DMDD at the top of his list of DSM-5 diagnoses we should “just ignore,” because “a new diagnosis can be more dangerous than a new drug.” Clinical social worker and pharmacist Joe Wegmann called DMDD a diagnosis based on “no credible research” that would help drive a “zealous binge” of overdiagnosis. Is the outcry legitimate? Or are Frances and Wegmann just having themselves their own conniption fit?

I can see that perfectly used to take away second amendment rights. It’s people like you who gave us both Hitler and Stalin.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM

In the 1800′s, THE GOVERNMENT routinely sold excess and outdated MILITARY FIREARMS to citizens. In the 1930′s, THE GOVERNMENT sold the Model 1903 rifle, THEIR MAIN BATTLE RIFLE AT THE TIME, to any citizen that was a member of an NRA recognized gun club. In the 1960′s, THE GOVERNMENT would sell the M1 Garand to citizens under the same criteria. The M1 was still in military service at the time, and was used by the National Guard well into the early 1970′s.

GarandFan on December 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Someone with the nic GarandFan should know and tell the rest of the tale.
Such surplus firearm sales continued well into the Clinton Administration, under the auspices of the Office of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM), until Clinton sought to kill the program and DESTROY all the surplus arms they were distributing.
COngress forced Clinton to abandon that plan and settle for cleaving the DCM (and their stocks of material & firearms) into a separate civilian entity specifically chartered and endowed by act of Congress, in 1996.
Ever since, the ODCMP has continued that work of making former surplus firearms and ammunition available to qualifying members of the citizenry. Particularly Garands and ammo for same.
Additionally, despite the provisions of the post-assassinations 1968 Gun Control Act barring direct mail-order of firearms, ODCMP’s charter provides for their functioning as an FFL and sending approved rifle purchases directly to the front door of the buyers, via FEDEX, TODAY.
http://www.odcmp.com/

I encourage all true Americans to avail themselves of this program and own a real piece of our military history, a well-functioning M-1 Garand, in .30-06. A cartridge that has twice the energy of the “high power .223 Bushwhacker” that the press keeps pissing themselves about.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

No less a deity than George Patton declared the Garand, “the greatest battle implement ever devised”.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It’s kind of odd that physicians must shield these people when you consider that for a while pediatricians were asking children if there were guns in their homes.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM

They still are. The AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics are still pushing that crap on their members.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM

LOL! When did we get a perfect world and society? When did all sciences and systems become perfect? Did I miss the memo?

Calling people names and comparing them to those who enabled maniacs like Hitler and Stalin simply because you disagree with them seems like an overreaction to me. Perhaps you should consider your own motivations in your response.

It’s also interesting that in your eagerness to vilify me, you used HITLER and STALIN as example… two of the worst MANIACS that society has ever produced, left untreated, and elevated to political power.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Boggles my mind why people like this cannot at least be held for 48 to 72 hours to determine if perhaps they are an imminent danger to others….

pbundy on December 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM

At one time, they could be.
But then, the ACLU and the rest of the touchy-feely crowd decide that these people were “bravely pioneering an alternative lifestyle which better suited their needs”; and that a 72-hour observation period was a gross infringement of their rights.

And here we are.

Solaratov on December 19, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The thing that stops mental health dead in it’s tracks is the political correct people that will be screaming “Profiling”. They will not let go of this profile agenda because it gives them power and giving up power is the greatest of all sins to the left.

mixplix on December 19, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Moron, that’s denying the rights of the rest of the household without due process.

Not only that, you moron, but you CAN have firearms in a household containing a felon. The felon just can’t have access or possess.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:28 PM

How can you prove the felon does not have access to the weapon?

You should be out there demanding we give guns to felons, bro. I mean, they are somebody’s family member, right? And of course, your own family member would never do something bad, because they grew up with you and your sound support.

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I encourage all true Americans to avail themselves of this program and own a real piece of our military history, a well-functioning M-1 Garand, in .30-06. A cartridge that has twice the energy of the “high power .223 Bushwhacker” that the press keeps pissing themselves about.

rayra on December 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM

..in the half decade I have been lurking here, Garandfan (a good guy) has never given any indication he knew about about the CMP. I sort of assumed he was. I have made the same recommendation you have a number of times here. (Also, several times I have availed myself of their products.)

Tangentially, I heard that Ted Kennedy himself — in the well of the senate with an M-1 in his hands — was going to vote for the law that allowed the DCM to repatriate lend-lease M-1s from Denmark and Greece to be sold by the DCM because it was clear no one was ever going to knock over a liquor store with one.

Googled it but could not come up with corroboration.

The War Planner on December 19, 2012 at 4:11 PM

It’s our duty, as a civilized society, to find that middle ground.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM

when it comes to freedom there is no middle ground you either have it or you don’t. The government is enpowered to take away some of our freedoms when those freedoms cause a break down in civil society. Other freedoms it has no power to take away thank god for the founders of this once great nation.

due process is one of those freedoms that the government can not take away no matter how much they would wish too.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It’s also interesting that in your eagerness to vilify me, you used HITLER and STALIN as example… two of the worst MANIACS that society has ever produced, left untreated, and elevated to political power.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Both imposed their totalitarian regimes by appealing to people’s insecurities. If you think that we can be protected from such evil by psychiatry, I think that you are more deluded than I originally thought. Hitler was democratically elected. Stalin was not, but the Russian revolution succeed because it too appealed to people’s insecurities. I think that before calling people names or insinuating obscure motives, you should educate yourself how psychiatry has been used by totalitarian regimes, particularly leftist ones, as a proxy for human rights abuses. The protections against arbitrary abuses by the psychiatric establishment exist for a reason. Given, as I have already documented, the controversial and non scientific nature of psychiatric diagnosis, that divides even psychiatrists themselves, it would be foolish for us conservatives to let the decision of who can own guns in the hands of a panel of so called “experts” who arbitrarily determine who can and cannot own these guns.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Gun Bans: Mad Dogs & Englishmen

M2RB: Leon Russell

Resist We Much on December 19, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Anyone who thinks that psychiatric diagnoses have clear, not easily abused definitions knows nothing of psychiatry or the law. Letting the government decide who gets due process and who doesn’t would be a worse diminution of our liberties than any gun control.

El Cabong on December 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM

IMO, the way to institutionalize a few more people would be to change the test from “imminently dangerous” to something like “likely to be dangerous within the next 30 days.”
In either case, psychiatry is a very soft science compared to chemistry, and the definition of a mentally ill person who presents an imminent danger, in my experience (been doing involuntary commitment cases for 12 years) is more of a gut feeling than an exact science. In retrospect every terrible event is 100per cent predictable, but predicting who will or won’t be violent isn’t yet more than educated guesses. Mental illness should not deprive a person of the right to due process.

El Cabong on December 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

You and I don’t agree. You are reacting emotionally. We have no choice, in society, but to make some effort to deal with those who are irrational and whose illness would cause harm to others or themselves. We are not a perfect society, this is not a perfect world, but some effort must be made.

We have set up, through the judicial system and the medical professions working in tandem, a system to try and afford care to those who require it. It isn’t perfect, it is necessary to see that it improved for those who require it and for the sake of a civilized society.

From your statements to me here today, you’d prefer it if nothing were done to try and see that those who would harm others, or themselves. I can only guess at your personal reasons for this preference.

I never advocated undermining due process, on the contrary, if you read my post, rather than reacting to it emotionally, you’d see that I support the judicial process and wish to see it made more effective and efficient.

As to your desire to ramble on about Hitler and Stalin, I’d suggest you find someone who wants to discuss that with you. I don’t.

I’m not sure what your problem is, but I suggest to you that it is of a personal nature…and you should keep it that way. There is no point in continuing this conversation. I’d suggest you just keep walking.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM

You and I don’t agree. You are reacting emotionally. We have no choice, in society, but to make some effort to deal with those who are irrational and whose illness would cause harm to others or themselves. We are not a perfect society, this is not a perfect world, but some effort must be made.
thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Talking about reacting on emotions! In fact, it’s the people like you who are being very emotional and very little rational here. In case you didn’t notice, we already have a system in place to deal with those who are potentially dangerous, it’s called the criminal justice system. As I said earlier, statistically speaking, blacks living in the inner cities are more likely to become criminals than the people with a psychiatric diagnosis. Even those diagnosed with the most feared of those, schizophrenia, are no more likely to become violent than the average folk. Those are the facts. You are the one talking from emotion here.

We have set up, through the judicial system and the medical professions working in tandem, a system to try and afford care to those who require it. It isn’t perfect, it is necessary to see that it improved for those who require it and for the sake of a civilized society.

And who is going to decide who requires “care” (which is codeword for coercive measures), the editor of the DSM-IV (Frances) or the editor of the DSM-5, who disagree on what constitutes a mental disorder, let alone on the propensity to become violent. As I said above, with the statistics in our hands, the fastest way to decrease gun violence is to lock preemptively the blacks living in the inner cities. Violence would become anecdotal. If we have the rule of law is for a reason. We don’t preemptively lock people unless there is a high likelihood that they are going to commit a crime.

From your statements to me here today, you’d prefer it if nothing were done to try and see that those who would harm others, or themselves. I can only guess at your personal reasons for this preference.

Let’s say that I know a thing or two about how totalitarian regimes have used psychiatry to push for human right abuses, both in the past and in the present. I also provided a report from Amnesty International. I am appealed that conservatives are so quick to embrace the idea psychiatrists should have a say about who deserve to have his/her second amendment rights take away from them.

I never advocated undermining due process, on the contrary, if you read my post, rather than reacting to it emotionally, you’d see that I support the judicial process and wish to see it made more effective and efficient.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM

In fact, you have. You are on record advocating that those that psychiatry considers mentally ill -with DSM-5 that could be a large chunk of the American people- should have less legal rights than those who have not. The legal safeguards against psychiatric abuse exist for a reason. With DSM-5, they are needed more than ever.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 6:32 PM

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Apparently your reading comprehension skills leave a great deal to be desired.

I made it clear in my posts that the mental health issues I was discussing, and even Lanza’s mental health issues, have NOTHING TO DO WITH GUN CONTROL, GUN LEGISLATION, OR ASSAULT WEAPONS BANS.

Trying to link the two issues, mental health and gun control legislation, is a matter embraced by the LEFT.

You just can’t seem to get the point.

I also said that our conversation was at an end, that we simply disagree, however, you are the sort who finds it necessary to have the last word. Obviously our ego is involved here.

IF it it’s any comfort to you, I find it readily believable when you inform me you’ve had experience with mental health issues.

So go ahead ‘incorrect’ have the last word… to your heart’s content.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:43 PM

our = your

sorry for the typo.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:45 PM

IF it it’s any comfort to you, I find it readily believable when you inform me you’ve had experience with mental health issues.

So go ahead ‘incorrect’ have the last word… to your heart’s content.

thatsafactjack on December 19, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I have not. What I said is that I know a thing or two about how totalitarian regimes have used (and use) psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent and I’ll leave it at that. It’s based on personal knowledge but thanks God nothing that happened to me personally.

With respect to your continued appeal to rationality, again, you are the one speaking from emotion. From a pure statistical/quantitative point of view, locking in preemptively blacks living in the inner cities, even teens (or especially teens) would have a much larger impact on the overall reduction of violence than getting rid of the due process afforded to those diagnosed with a mental illness. The mental illness issues thing is a proxy that the left will use to undermine the second amendment, especially in a DSM-5 world. I am appalled that conservatives are so happy to embrace it.

You are the one who should get over your arrogance. There was, there is and there will be evil people in the world that will do horrible things beyond the comprehension of moral people, including killing innocent children. Undermining due process will do nothing to prevent these evil people from causing such massacres. Leftist European countries such as Norway, Finland or Germany have more restrictions on gun control and on people diagnosed with mental illness that will ever be possible in the US. Yet, in the last 10 years, massacres such as Friday’s are becoming common place over there. The reason for all this is moral relativism. I find it very troubling that the left is scapegoating on the second amendment while the right is following suit with undermining the rights of those diagnosed with mental illnesses.

p_incorrect on December 19, 2012 at 7:17 PM

If nothing else, this should demonstrate how easy it would be for some all encompassing lists to sweep up people and families who may not benefit from any such intrusion.

I can see this having similar issues to the “Do Not Fly” list. How many times did we hear of names that were put on the list without justification, or there was some sort of type, and the wrong person was placed on the list? I even recall a story where a mother found out her toddler was on the list. Once your on the list, the burden isn’t on the government to prove a name should be on the list. The burden is on the individual to prove that their name shouldn’t be on the list.

Even worse, I can see this being used as a weapon against the enemies of politicians. I put nothing past some of the members of our government, and the last thing I want is for them to become the judge, jury, and executioner of my constitutional rights.

HarryBackside on December 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Why is it we conservatives tend to associate mental illness with the guy in the tinfoil hat whose dog is telling him to head up the bell tower? The libs in their kind inclusiveness will also ban weapons to anyone that has ever had:

ADD/ADHD
Aspergers
family counciling
post-partum depression
PTSD
or any rough patch where they’ve reached out for help

Laura in Maryland on December 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM

I received a very serious response on Twitter from one gun control activist who answered my question of which weapons should be banned. I was told, you can have a muzzle loading rifle. That’s what the constitution gives you a right to.

Did you ask that Tweeter to identify what part of the Constitution states that? I’m not familiar with the “muzzle loading rifle” part of that document. Perhaps it’s in the same portion of the Constitution where the Constitution defines itself as “‘living’ and able to be changed according to a changing culture…

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Why is it we conservatives tend to associate mental illness with the guy in the tinfoil hat whose dog is telling him to head up the bell tower? The libs in their kind inclusiveness will also ban weapons to anyone that has ever had:

ADD/ADHD
Aspergers
family counciling
post-partum depression
PTSD
or any rough patch where they’ve reached out for help

Laura in Maryland on December 20, 2012 at 12:37 AM

No. Liberals will define “mental illness” as anyone who is pro-life, pro-marriage as between one man and one woman and who isn’t out partying with homosexuals or otherwise (those people will be deemed “homophobic” and it’ll be one of the Left’s keen “insanities”) and especially if you’re a member of the NRA, own guns and don’t drive a Toyota Prius.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:34 AM

AS MUCH AS I recognize the importance of mental health conditions to a sound society, I ALSO understand why the “de-institutionalization” concept became the rule of the land decades ago.

BECAUSE in Soviet Russia, Communist rule USED psychiatry AND institutionalization without an individual’s right to determine for themself about that as a form of POLITICAL PUNISHMENT.

The “government” decided who was to be shipped off and who wasn’t. The government deemed someone mentally unwell (or even “crazy” and a danger to their society) if and when they disagreed politically with the government, when and if they were intellectual to some point that they questioned what the government was up to or were engaged in instructing others by works of art — books/literature, graphics, education — to challenge the government…

…and physicians of psychiatry were required to report their findings to government for the purpose of the government deciding whether that person (patient) should be sent off to a gulag (Siberia was where they were stored and in very grim circumstances). So doctors became functional government employees in this process and medicine took a back seat if not was tossed out altogether while politics took over.

That sounds far too much like the conditions that are happening today in the US, at least as to the doctors-as-government-agents, what with, particularly, the appearance of the ObamaTax and the dwindling privacy (if any privacy even remains) with medical records and the doctor-patient relationship being now a quite public one with the government more involved with the patient/consumer than the doctors are.

We as a nation have to be very, very careful what rights we limit for the individual, to state the obvious. Treating people who are mentally unwell when it’s against their will is a touchy area for just what Russia proved it to be with their dreadful horrors committed for decades against individuals using “medicine” for political purposes.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:44 AM

However, the dilemma remains: how to provide mental health treatment or management to persons who don’t or won’t consider they need it. This is a very common problem with schizophrenics, for example: they all too often don’t believe their beliefs, perspectives, experiences are questionable and instead conclude that “others” or “everyone else” is someone disturbed or, when it’s worse, that others are employees of some conspiratorial process that is pursuing them and such (“paranoid schizophrenia”).

Persons such as that are often hospitalized only after they’ve engaged in some violence against others, which they engage in against others because they are extremely and irrationally paranoid and hatefully destructive in some false belief that they’re “retaliating” against someone they hold paranoid delusions about. They end up in jail after they commit violence and sometimes, if it works out well for them, they end up institutionalized or at least required to engage in an out-patient maintenance program with doctors.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:50 AM

…Democrats always “sell” the public what polls well but when they actually pass it through the Hill and White House….it is loaded with loop holes and ideological trap doors that help them achieve their agenda without fear that the press will hold them accountable.

Everyday we keep hearing about these “surprises from Obamacare”…..what bullsh!t….none of these massive job killing costs is a surprise at all to millions of Conservatives…..but we were called “racist” for pointing them out.

Any gun legislation that comes from this administration will be loaded with hidden restrictions and other tools to help the anti-gun lobby gut the 2nd Amendment.
….they proclaim “we’re not trying to take your guns”….while at the same time making it nearly impossible to own one….shoot one….or carry one by increasing the costs associated with gun ownership (million dollar life insurance policies to own a gun….taxing the he!! out of ammo….classifying almost any gun as an “assault weapon”…..banning most ammo by classifying it as “armor piercing”)……
Democrats will sell it as “protecting our kids” while in reality they are going to try to disarm millions of law abiding citizens and leaving us as vulnerable victims to the criminals that don’t follow laws.

The fact that areas heavily controlled by democrats that have strict gun laws are some of the most dangerous places in America is not important when there agenda trumps what is best for the American citizen.

Baxter Greene on December 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Well said.

For a preview of what any Democrat-waged legislation might look like as to “mental health” related to gun use and ownership, take a look at what the Left did with the “bullying” thing and who they targeted irrationally and illogically as those responsible for “bullying.”

The complaint begins with a reasonable premise based upon concerning, individual experiences reported and then…and then…the Left exploits the process to force a Leftwing, cryptic bastardization of the original concept into one of a Socio-political damaging act waged against those they consider to be enemies of the Left and Left wrongful assumptions.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:58 AM

What is ironic about this whole thing is that evidence exists that this guy snapped and killed 27 people and then himself because of the threat of getting committed to a mental health facility. It was the threat of having to get help that made him to go on a killing rampage. He killed his own mother because she was trying to get him help that he didn’t want any part of. Injecting mental health into this might cause more mentally unstable people to snap and kill people instead of less. Also, our understanding of mental health is still so primitive, we are just starting to uncover the complexities of the human mind and the drugs used to treat mental illnesses are even more primitive. Medical science has just not come far enough to explain mental illness in terms of cause and effect to even think about how to treat it. I can’t blame anyone for not trusting those that try.

Dollayo on December 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM

As many of you are indeed aware, to possess a firearm you cannot have EVER been involuntarily (against your will) sent to psychiatric facility or hospital for a mental health evaluation of ANY KIND.

With that having been said, what’s coming down the pipe in this regard is the following.

As part of your application to purchase a firearm, you’ll have to be interviewed by a gov’t official. If, during that interview, it is determined at the sole discretion of that official, that you need further evaluation, they will have you sent to a facility for a mental health evaluation. As a result, no matter WHAT THE OUTCOME of that evaluation, the mere fact that you were involutarily sent to such a facility for evaluation thereafter permanently strips you of your 2nd amendment right.

It’s the Dem’s wet dream come true where THEY get to decide who gets to own a firearm and who doesn’t, no matter how spotless criminal history is. Because firearm ownership will no longer be about what you’ve ever DONE in your life. Rather, it’ll be about your thinking and thoughts that THEY think you might have going on in your head!

Mahdi on December 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Of course, being a card carrying member in good standing of the Democrat Party with a solid record of actively supporting Dem candidates and contributing to Dem causes will go a long way towards convincing that Gov’t Official that you have the “right” thoughts in your head and thus don’t need a mental health evaluation and so your application for firearm ownership will get immediately approved.

All you thoroughly despicable crazed rightwing nutcases will, of course, require a thorough mental health evaluation and perhaps an extended post-release stay at a gov’t re-education facility run by FEMA.

Mahdi on December 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

No. Liberals will define “mental illness” as anyone who is pro-life, pro-marriage as between one man and one woman and who isn’t out partying with homosexuals or otherwise (those people will be deemed “homophobic” and it’ll be one of the Left’s keen “insanities”) and especially if you’re a member of the NRA, own guns and don’t drive a Toyota Prius.

Lourdes on December 20, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Bingo. The libs have already tried to define any member of the NRA, TEA Party, or any other conservative organization as a terrorist. You can bet their definition of “mentally ill” will include any conservative position – including “the desire to own a gun”.
So if you actually want a gun, by (their) definition you will be judged mentally ill and therefore not eligible to have a gun.

dentarthurdent on December 20, 2012 at 3:18 PM

This is frustrating. The results for these tragedies always all. The blowback is always knee-jerk, people yell and scream and then as it dies down nothing productive is actually done.

I don’t pretend to have any of the answers. This highlights (as similar tragedies do) that our mental health system SUCKS. But then again, when you have “leaders” of this country that act in the most unhealthy ways (I mean the gambit, emotionally, mentally) what do you expect. I mean let’s look at when we did have hospitals and places to put people that had mental health issues – look at how they were treated. Humans suck some times!! And this kid that shot his mother and these kids snapped. You can’t predict that. Just like you can’t predict when someone is going to stab someone else or rape someone. Should we throw away all sharp objects or start cutting off penises because you never know when people are going to go bad?

TturnP on December 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM

The libs have already tried to define any member of the NRA, TEA Party, or any other conservative organization as a terrorist. You can bet their definition of “mentally ill” will include any conservative position – including “the desire to own a gun”.

We’ve already seen supposed “scientific studies” claiming exactly that.

And what was the standard tactic for Stalin. Have the government health-care psychiatrists declare enemies of the state “crazy”.

SDN on December 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2