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

…NUTS…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM

….the ACLU will lock YOU up…before they let you have a loved one cared for!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

…you get court orders to take your kid home…and medicate him!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM

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.

Very true Jazz. But remember they are already trying to do with with anyone who has been noted via the psychological field, to have “PTSD”.

Just a thought… this has already started.

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

…half our politicians could be ‘locked up’…!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I thought penitential psychiatry was limited to the Soviet Union. Guess what, it’s coming ashore here pretty soon.

Archivarix on December 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I thought penitential psychiatry was limited to the Soviet Union. Guess what, it’s coming ashore here pretty soon.

Archivarix on December 19, 2012 at 8:59 AM

This needs to be handled at the state level, not by the federales. The deinstitutionalization movement corresponded with a significant up-tick in violent crime, after which gun-free zones were evinced, thus leading to a further up-tick in violent crime, Etc. Etc. ad nauseam. We will never address this problem until we get at the real root cause, which is mental illness.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:04 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

Gun control. Politicians once again treating the symptom and not the cause.

they lie on December 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM

If we just ban guns, mental health issues will go away by themselves. /

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:06 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.

No, it doesn’t. It specifically says-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

At no place does it specify which ARMS shall not be infringed, just that it ‘shall not’. The reason for that-they didn’t want to be narrow in their thinking. It later years, it wouldn’t need to be adjusted as it encompassed all ARMS.

Also, the Bill of Rights was only added because of the fear that the Constitution didn’t specifically state what the rights were that the people had. People on the other side said that the constitution as it was was already what they seeked, that if the rights granted to the government weren’t enumerated, then it was reserved to the people i.e. the government couldn’t do anything about it. The opponents of the amendments warned of the possiblity of government, after having these amendments in the document, would then try and curtail any of the now enumerated ‘rights’. It looks as though they were right.

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Ok, I’ll see if this sees the light of day without the link:

Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5

Google it.

Akzed on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

We need to give psych exams to all guns to make sure they don’t rise up and strike again as they just did in CT.

Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

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.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Now we know why all those federal agencies have been stockpiling ammunition.

Crazy, yep that’s me.

Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Ok, I’ll see if this sees the light of day without the link:

Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5

Google it.

Akzed on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

What’s funny is that it’s easier to piss off a shrink than it is anyone else. I did it once to a school psychiatrist when he phoned about one of children. It was a laugh a minute! He got so angry he reported he to police. The cop and I had more laughs about it, and no charges were filed.

In my experience, shrinks who write that garbage are more messed up than the crazies they have under their charge.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Considering our “friends” on the Left consider Conservatism, Christianity, and Republicanism as “mental diseases”, they’ll seek to take away even muzzle-loading rifles.

Steve Eggleston on December 19, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Maybe Obamacare covers gun-related mental illness?
It will solve everything, if only we would read it.
/s

tomg51 on December 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

There’s a joke, “Everyone’s crazy but you and me, and I’m not so sure about you”. With very few exceptions, we all have within us a capacity for greatness, and a capacity for disaster. Strengths and weaknesses.

In conclusion … what, you want a conclusion to that? Uh … life is complicated?

Paul-Cincy on December 19, 2012 at 9:22 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:04 AM

This. The deinstitutionalization of America is where this begins and ends.
The liberals refuse to address it. We got into a discussion about this last night and boy, was it heated.
If that dude had not had access to guns he would have used a knife or explosives.

ORconservative on December 19, 2012 at 9:22 AM

i think all that is needed is to have a strong pathway to get people committed after due process. We can’t just hasve a mother or father say my son is nuts and then lock them up. That didn’t work as many parents decided to dump their children on the state beforte. But strong courts more judges more juries would go a long way to this. no need for “lists” or keeping track of people. give the person their day in court and let ajury decide.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I still say that 9600 gun homicides in a population of 325 million people is low. Also, the fact that children were targeted and that they were all huddled together led to the high casualties. So all this rush to change laws is ridiculous.

Blake on December 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

if only we had a leader attacking the gun control laws that caused this massacre. The gun free zones, the tough gun control laws in CT. those were responsibile for this shooting more than mental health.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

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. .

This is true of any serious legislation that democrats craft and put forth….
……Nancy was only exposing their agenda when she remarked “we have to pass the bill so we can find out what’s in it” when referring to Obamacare.

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

Maybe Obamacare covers gun-related mental illness?
It will solve everything, if only we would read it.
/s

tomg51 on December 19, 2012 at 9:20 AM

No,no,no! That would ‘stigmatize’ the (using the term in hushed tones) mentally ill. We can’t have that. The only right thing to do is take guns away from everyone (except inner city street thugs who most often happen to be non-white) so as not to be insensitive to the…umm…(hushed tone again) mentally challenged.

Really. It works! As proof, of all the (hushed tone) mentally ill, out in society, how many did not shoot up a school today? See! There’s all the proof we need! Ten gazillion (hushed tone) mentally ill didn’t shoot up a school, so letting them free in society is a sure winner. We got it right!

But those Conservatives and Christians, on the other hand…

/snark

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Can a driver’s license be denied in the case of a mental illness?

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

i think all that is needed is to have a strong pathway to get people committed after due process. We can’t just hasve a mother or father say my son is nuts and then lock them up. That didn’t work as many parents decided to dump their children on the state beforte. But strong courts more judges more juries would go a long way to this. no need for “lists” or keeping track of people. give the person their day in court and let ajury decide.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Since many commenters here are tip-toeing around the issue, I’ll say it: It needs to be easier than it is. Adam Lanza’s mother was pursuing conservatorship, but it took her too damn long. Connecticut not only has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but also has some of the most hellacious red tape when it comes to involuntary committal. Every single day that Mrs. Lanza had to spend in pursuit of getting her son the help he needed was a day she sat on a ticking time bomb. And the real b!tch of it is, she knew it!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

When it comes to the mentally deranged, face it, sh*t happens.

Having everybody wear purple socks will not change anything at all about the problem. But the Left and so many others still actually believe that yet another layer of laws, regulations and such will finally “fix” the problem?

How many gun laws already on the books did this Connecticut murderer violate? How many laws already on the books did the Aurora shooter violate? In countless shootings. hatchet maimings, stabbings, and other forms of mayhem, people who have a grudge, a mental issue, a chip on their shoulders, most often couldn’t care any less about all the laws ever written, all the regulations ever imposed and will go after one or as many of their intended victims as they can…because they want to.

Little Billy peed his pants yesterday…therefore everybody has to wear diapers or Depends 25/7 from this day forward until nobody ever again pees their pants.

That is what this is all coming to.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Can a driver’s license be denied in the case of a mental illness?

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Depends on the state. As far as I know, all 50 states require practical driving tests. You have to physically demonstrate your ability to drive. And that also means signing a piece of paper that says you don’t have epileptic seizures, random blackouts, or the like.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

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.

This ABC/WaPo poll (lol) doesn’t square with the colossal surge in gun sales and NRA memberships this past week. Try again.

Mr. Arrogant on December 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Since many commenters here are tip-toeing around the issue, I’ll say it: It needs to be easier than it is. Adam Lanza’s mother was pursuing conservatorship, but it took her too damn long. Connecticut not only has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but also has some of the most hellacious red tape when it comes to involuntary committal. Every single day that Mrs. Lanza had to spend in pursuit of getting her son the help he needed was a day she sat on a ticking time bomb. And the real b!tch of it is, she knew it!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

+1000

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Mika: Why would you have those guns?

Funny how Mika never asked why Obama/Holder sold “those types of guns” to Mexican drug Cartels.
Only resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people including American law enforcement.

Question Mika…..”why such selective outrage????”

Baxter Greene on December 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I still say that 9600 gun homicides in a population of 325 million people is low. Also, the fact that children were targeted and that they were all huddled together led to the high casualties. So all this rush to change laws is ridiculous.

Blake on December 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

9600 is a statistic. A number. Now how aobut if one of those 9600 individuals was your spouse? Or your child? Kind of changes things, doesn’t it?

I’m all for a discussion of how to keep stuff like this from happening. I’m all for minimizing death, dismemberment, misery, and mourning. In order to do that, we have to be addressing the correct issues and asking the right questions. I hold out little hope that modern America is capable of such bold action.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

This is all wrong. The way to solve the problem of psychopaths committing terrible crimes is obviously to put the psychiatrist in jail when they do, and let the poor crazy person go free!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/french-psychiatrist-sentenced-patient-commits-murder-192855747.html

claudius on December 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM

i think all that is needed is to have a strong pathway to get people committed after due process. We can’t just hasve a mother or father say my son is nuts and then lock them up. That didn’t work as many parents decided to dump their children on the state beforte. But strong courts more judges more juries would go a long way to this. no need for “lists” or keeping track of people. give the person their day in court and let ajury decide.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Since many commenters here are tip-toeing around the issue, I’ll say it: It needs to be easier than it is. Adam Lanza’s mother was pursuing conservatorship, but it took her too damn long. Connecticut not only has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but also has some of the most hellacious red tape when it comes to involuntary committal. Every single day that Mrs. Lanza had to spend in pursuit of getting her son the help he needed was a day she sat on a ticking time bomb. And the real b!tch of it is, she knew it!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Absolutely!

In grad school, a paranoid schizophrenic threatened me and waited for me in my (supposedly) secure apartment building. Yet, I was told that he needed to make more “direct threats” than “I can do whatever I want to you whenever I want to do it” to be picked up.

A friend of mine was made psychotic by a prescribed drug. After telling us that his son had murdered people and they were buried under his high rise, calling people at 2AM to let them know “people were trying to kill them” and other assorted insanities, family and friends tried to get him picked up and evaluated. No. We were told that if he was not willing to go himself, “direct threats” or a crime were necessary for involuntary examination.

Well – about a week later, he did it. Fired a round of bullets into his country club… Good news: no one hurt. Bad news? Now this Harvard MBA and lawyer is a felon.

And – I have a few more stories if you are interested.

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

Since many commenters here are tip-toeing around the issue, I’ll say it: It needs to be easier than it is. Adam Lanza’s mother was pursuing conservatorship, but it took her too damn long.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Our healthcare system is absolutely toothless, mental healthcare especially. No thanks to groups like the Atheists, Communists, and Lunatics Union.

We do not make even the faintest effort to quarantine people with transmittable, incurable, FATAL diseases. We throw up roadblocks in the path of people who are desperately trying to get someone they know is an incurable nutcase in the local looney bin before he/she hurts someone else.

For crying out loud in the bucket, the kid’s own mother was the one trying to have him committed and she couldn’t do it in any timely fashion. Do liberals have any idea how hard it is for a mother to decide that her own progeny needs to be hauled off to the bug-house?!

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Thank you – same as Australia. Mental illness is not considered – prior to coming to the attention of the authorities. As such, I consider mental illness to be a separate issue from gun control.

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Sounds about right. The thing is, they read the Constitution, when it suits them, in the days gone by from our forefathers only allowing single-shot guns when it suits them.

But when they want to grab more power, it is the living, breathing, ever changing document that now has the power to gobble up anything they see as being in their way – property rights, commerce, healthcare etc. It is always to take something away from the citizenry, rather than give back.

Maybe we could use their previous argument against them. Over 99% of people who own guns in the US do NOT do anything to harm anyone. The 1% are the bad ones, just like when the Left were demonizing Wall Street. Well, we are the 99% now. I know I am living in fantasy land here, of course it doesn’t matter that penalizing 99% of the gun-owners for the actions of less than 1% is not fair. But they don’t care about statistics and numbers…just spin.

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM

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

Some states, including my home state of South Dakota I think, allow for 72 hour psychiatric holds. Connecticut does not. Connect the dots.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM

the Government is too involved already. Even in red states Child Services is all over you – checking up on the kids, investigating every silly report from a nosy neighbor. It’s absurd.

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Thank you – same as Australia. Mental illness is not considered – prior to coming to the attention of the authorities. As such, I consider mental illness to be a separate issue from gun control.

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM

As do I. Gun control isn’t the issue here. It’s a distraction. Connecticut’s “assault weapons ban” didn’t apply to the guns Lanza used to kill. It failed in its stated purpose of keeping the people of Connecticut safe. Connecticut’s community of mental health professionals also failed to keep the people of the state safe, but that was a failure of inaction. And I’m sorry to say, I don’t think we’ve learned a single thing from either failure as a nation.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

the Government is too involved already. Even in red states Child Services is all over you – checking up on the kids, investigating every silly report from a nosy neighbor. It’s absurd.

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Congratulations on deliberately missing the point.

Once more, with emphasis for you: the kid’s own mother was desperately trying to get him committed and she couldn’t.

She was literally begging with the ‘authorities’ to have her son put away before his head case begot a police case.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM
Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Back in the ’60′s liberals of all stripes worked hard to overturn all sorts of “insane” laws and opened the doors to asylums and sanitariums and homes for the
insane” and were darn proud that they ended centuries of evil treatment of those with mental disorders. Wholesale.

With the stroke or two of a pen, thousands of mentally ill, mentally challenged citizens were turned out into the streets. The rise of street homeless people in cities all across the country and the emptying of our mental facilities somehow coincided.

And a lot of street crime and a lot of decay of our communities as well.

Getting anyone, even with their own permission, taken off the streets became a long and laborious legal project. Patient advocates could at any time step up, having no direct relationship with the person intended to be committed, and stop the process and engage the courts, and require parents, spouses, even children of the person intended to secure lawyers, expend funds, life savings, just to get a judge to approve a commitment order.

Now, the Left, and too many Americans, are suddenly wringing their hands over this stuff?

What can we do?

Well, they made the mess.

A qualified, board certified, physician should be the sole person, along with a responsible family member, to get a child or any family member admitted, as quickly as possible. But, in too many cases, it is not that simple.

Bet those advocates for the “insane” back in the 60′s are surely proud of what they have wrought.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

9600 is a statistic. A number. Now how aobut if one of those 9600 individuals was your spouse? Or your child? Kind of changes things, doesn’t it?

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

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

Congratulations on deliberately missing the point.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

key word there – deliberately

so don’t explain it to me. I obviously don’t wanna hear it.

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM

And I’m sorry to say, I don’t think we’ve learned a single thing from either failure as a nation.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

your mistake is thinking the people wanted to learn anything. Most on the left simply saw it has an “oppurtunity” to push their agenda. If we wanted to learn anything we would be reexamining gun free zones. Questioning why strong gun control laws didn’t work in CT and if they ever work. Question why a mother had such a hard time getting her son the help he needed.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Thank you – same as Australia. Mental illness is not considered – prior to coming to the attention of the authorities. As such, I consider mental illness to be a separate issue from gun control.

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Funny you mention Australia, as that is the direction we’re going and for the same reason.

Steve Eggleston on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

so don’t explain it to me. I obviously don’t wanna hear it.

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Well thank you for at least saying out loud that you can’t be educated, I appreciate the honesty.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

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

Something new from the media (considering how correct they have been, take it with a pound of salt) the killer wasn’t on medication.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

9600 is a statistic. A number. Now how aobut if one of those 9600 individuals was your spouse? Or your child? Kind of changes things, doesn’t it?

I’m all for a discussion of how to keep stuff like this from happening. I’m all for minimizing death, dismemberment, misery, and mourning. In order to do that, we have to be addressing the correct issues and asking the right questions. I hold out little hope that modern America is capable of such bold action.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:37 AM

For the mental health side of this debate, that is where more needs to be done. As for the guns side of the debate, I think that we don’t need any more laws. We need to enforce the ones that we have.

If my wife was killed by someone with a gun, I would not blame the gun or its manufacturer. I would blame the person who killed her. No one else, or thing, is to blame. Period.

The correct issues in most of the mass killings is the mental state of the individuals. They had no reason to own a weapon at that time. If CT had had the law on the books that the ACLU helped defeat, this MAY not have occurred. But we will never know. At least now they are talking about mental health as part of the solution. But the problem is that if there is a drop in the mass killings in the US, it will be hard to seperate from the ban on ‘assault weapons’ should such a measure pass. They will be part of the same bill, and the left will say that that is the reason for the drop, not that mentally ill persons were now being treated.

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:51 AM

At no place does it specify which ARMS shall not be infringed, just that it ‘shall not’. The reason for that-they didn’t want to be narrow in their thinking. It later years, it wouldn’t need to be adjusted as it encompassed all ARMS.

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Hey! You’ve hit on a pet peeve of mine after one sanctimonious commie after another and stands up and talks about not needing a semi-automatic weapon to go hunting. The Second Amendment does not deal with hunting. It does not enshrine the right to hunt. It’s time to remind the filthy left about what the Second Amendment actually says.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 9:51 AM

The real problem is the media, they promote these lone insane people as being representative of the country. In a nation of 300+ million, that should be hard to do, but apparently not.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 9:51 AM

lots of people are mentally ill – look at Stephanie Cutter. More laws aren’t gonna help. More laws never help.

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.

I can’t believe I’m quoting Ed and agreeing

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 9:41 AM

After having been a hard-core lib many years ago, and dealing with them all the time, I attest that not even liberals know what they want. To me, that’s the height of crazy–the very definition of it.

Guns aren’t the problem (of course). What is the problem is letting crazies loose to illegally get their hands on firearms. And that’s more loony than the crazies.

But that’s liberalism for ya.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Something new from the media (considering how correct they have been, take it with a pound of salt) the killer wasn’t on medication.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

So? Lanza’s mother was sitting on a ticking time bomb and she knew it and there was nothing she could do to get the state to address her very real fears in a timely manner. This doesn’t change a thing in my eyes except that the media may have actually reported something accurately on this story for a change.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

A qualified, board certified, physician should be the sole person, along with a responsible family member, to get a child or any family member admitted, as quickly as possible. But, in too many cases, it is not that simple.

Bet those advocates for the “insane” back in the 60′s are surely proud of what they have wrought.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

bullcrap. EVERYONE should have due process. The day anyone by their word alone can lock you up is the day all freedom is gone, its why Im 100% against the patriot act and all laws that give the government that type of power. The political prisions of Cuba the ussr, Iraq all show what can and will happen.

Im all for streamlining the process. But that means more money to our court system, more public defenders et which is fine by me.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Denial, denial, denial. Get it together America. Dems always, always, always twisting the argument to blame inatimate objects for tragedies. Remember when SUV’s were the scourge of the earth?

BetseyRoss on December 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Well thank you for at least saying out loud that you can’t be educated, I appreciate the honesty.

MelonCollie on December 19, 2012 at 9:49 AM

why educate myself when I know everything already? Geebus, it’s hard to deal with you simpletons ;)

Slade73 on December 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

your mistake is thinking the people wanted to learn anything. Most on the left simply saw it has an “oppurtunity” to push their agenda. If we wanted to learn anything we would be reexamining gun free zones. Questioning why strong gun control laws didn’t work in CT and if they ever work. Question why a mother had such a hard time getting her son the help he needed.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I’m more worried about how self-professing “conservatives” are responding to this. I expect very little from libbies.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I don’t think we’ve learned a single thing from either failure as a nation.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM

You’re not on your own – Australia is just as bad.

OldEnglish on December 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM


The real problem is the media, they promote these lone insane people as being representative of the country.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 9:51 AM

But,one jihadi disguised as an Army Medical Corps major, and a psychiatrist, too, is a mere “lone wolf” engaged in workplace violence. And we are forbidden (if in the military) to make the implication that Mohammedan jihadis are somehow bad people.

We must embrace diversity, right? /

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Hoping that the Mayans did not forget to carry a jaguar or misplaced a decimal serpent in their calculations for Friday. We all could stand a bit of end times.

Might enable the survivors to actually rebuild this whole shooting match from scratch into something even better then what we’ve devolved into of late.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Over at Small Dead Animals (SDA), it took the Canadians to make the observation that EVERY ONE of the latest shootings has been done by young men, dressed up in costume. The costume may be gothic, action figures, etc. That means it is hollywood that is responsible, not the NRA or guns. If people go postal, the normally do it in mufti.

I find it incredible that the people who want to kill republicans, conservatives, and NRA members because those don’t want to give up their guns, can’t understand why people they want to kill, don’t want to give up their guns. I don’t have an assault rifle (in the military sense), but I reserve the right to use one to defend myself against assault.

Old Country Boy on December 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

bullcrap. EVERYONE should have due process. The day anyone by their word alone can lock you up is the day all freedom is gone, its why Im 100% against the patriot act and all laws that give the government that type of power. The political prisions of Cuba the ussr, Iraq all show what can and will happen.

Im all for streamlining the process. But that means more money to our court system, more public defenders et which is fine by me.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Careful, Un. This is a dark road you’re going down. I can’t necessarily say I disagree with you in your belief that everyone should have “due process.” The problem with that is, “due process” is what delayed Adam Lanza’s conservatorship and made his killing spree possible in Connecticut. I know this is an uncomfortable truth, one that can only be acknowledged in the hindsight of a painful revelation and tragic epiphany, but it is true: A faster conservatorship process would have been more likely to keep Lanza from killing.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Even using mental health factors (if available) on a gun buyer won’t stop a massacre. Lanz was denied a legal gun purchase, so what did he do? He killed his mom, stole her weapons, and he rest is horror.

In the old USSR, police would get a fake call about some crime in progress. When the cop arrived, the street gang would jump him and take his firearm. That was their whole intent: to get the gun. Done enough times, the whole gang is armed while the average Russian citizen is defenseless.

Realistically–if the gun-grabbers want to truly disarm Americans of their firearms, they’re going to have to include the police, too. They either don’t realize that, or they don’t care.

Either way, it’s typically textbook liberal.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

We can have abortions on demand…and often without parental knowledge or permission in almost asll states…but a competent medical authority, board certified physician, and a responsible family member cannot have a severely mentally ill person taken off the streets to prevent harm to themselves and others?

Insanity.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

What made you switch, if I may ask?

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

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?

…which also goes to the point of do we want people like the liberals that call anyone who doesn’t share their political ideology “nazi,terrorist,militant,knuckle dragging militant” making the determination of whether someone is “crazy” or not.

There still need to be some hard actions taken by someone (like committing a crime…violence in the home or workplace….serious threats made with witnesses to back it up etc.) before labeling someone “mentally unstable and a threat to society”…..

Mrs. Lanza already admitted that her son was exhibiting dangerous behavior such as burning himself.This type of self mutilation is serious and should have been taken serious by the psychiatric community. If he was committing other similar acts and also being violent to the people around him….his case certainly should have been fast tracked.

People like Lanza,Cho,Loughner exhibited enough abnormal behavior that they should have been committed or under some type of serious supervision (Cho’s parents I believe actually were blocked or hampered in some way by the courts in trying to get him help…which I believe was sealed in his records allowing him to pass a background check)……..

…..the Aurora killer would have been a much harder case since he was not outwardly violent,went through his routine with little social problems,and pretty much was only attributed with making “weird comments” that made people uncomfortable.

…rules or laws set up to have him committed on these grounds could easily result in having the majority of us committed at one time or another in our lives.

I’m still going with taking my life and my families in my own hands.We are vigilant and armed.We refuse to be easy victims.

Baxter Greene on December 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

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 </blockquote

We can't prevent crime. We can't prevent evil. We can defend against it. In that regard what we need to do if we must do "something" is abolish gun free zones. Teach self defense to teachers. Give them the tools to defend themsleves. Get rid of gun control all together. Make people aware crazies exist and utopia is a pipedream thought up by drug adled people.

A firm believer in the 2nd amendment in DC would see this debate as an oppurtunity to drive the final nail in the coffin of the gun grabbers and show how their polices led to the deaths of those children by disarming the law abiding adults of a means to defend themselves and their charges.

those "leaders" who do njot step up at this time to defend our rights are either cowards or never believed in them and what the population defenselss.

How many more of our children will the left sacrifice at the alter of political correctness and their feel good policies.

Gun free zones are the problem. Bank robbers rob banks because that is where the money is. Mass killers target schools because that's where the defensless are.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Gun free zones are the problem. Bank robbers rob banks because that is where the money is. Mass killers target schools because that’s where the defensless are.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

But if guns are not the problem, how can we say gun-free zones are? Doesn’t there still have to be a motive, even if that motive is mental illness? Let’s not forget that Adam Lanza was literally certifiable. I can not stress that enough. More guns? Fewer guns? More laws? Fewer laws? Wait just a cotton-pickin’ second! The dude was dangerous! How come I’m not hearing more debate over why it was so difficult for Mrs. Lanza to have her son recognized as dangerous by the state? Should this not have been an easy call? At what point does “due process” endanger innocent individuals as it appears to have done at Sandy Hook Elementary?!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

We can have abortions on demand…and often without parental knowledge or permission in almost asll states…but a competent medical authority, board certified physician, and a responsible family member cannot have a severely mentally ill person taken off the streets to prevent harm to themselves and others?

Insanity.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

two wrongs don’t make a right. Abortion on demand is a evil policy that kills millions every year.

There is no set standard to define crazy. Would you want a board certified leftist doctor to have the power to take say a tea party member off the street because they though the belief in limited government was “crazy talk”? Would you want a controlling parent to be able to lock up thier child if they “disobeyed” And yes the cases of child abuse tells anyone that there are those types of parents out there.

Equating abortion to the discussion is meaningless. They are two seperate things. I think anyone that can kill their child is insane does that mean if I go to school get certified as a doctor I should have the power to commit mothers that have an abortion?

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

If we only have the right to flintlocks .. does the press only have the right to manual feed iron printing presses?

codewhisperer on December 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Now we know why all those federal agencies have been stockpiling ammunition. Crazy, yep that’s me. Bishop on December 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM

You think that’s crazy?!

Akzed on December 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

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.

You’d crash into a HIPPA lawsuit almost immediately if you tried to open up medical records to cross-match them with lists of people buying or attempt to buy guns … though the schadenfreude would be fun to watch, seeing the same liberals who pushed so hard for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (mainly to keep those evil insurance companies from getting easy access to info on pre-existing medical conditions) suddenly deciding they’re all for HIPPA exemptions when the records to be released are for something that serves their political beliefs.

jon1979 on December 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM

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.

These bans would not have prevented the Conneticut massacre had they been in place at that time.

paulsur on December 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM

You’d crash into a HIPPA lawsuit almost immediately if you tried to open up medical records to cross-match them with lists of people buying or attempt to buy guns … though the schadenfreude would be fun to watch, seeing the same liberals who pushed so hard for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (mainly to keep those evil insurance companies from getting easy access to info on pre-existing medical conditions) suddenly deciding they’re all for HIPPA exemptions when the records to be released are for something that serves their political beliefs.

jon1979 on December 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM

What are you talking about, fool? Laws don’t apply to the government. You been living under a rock for the last five years?

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

DSM-IV seems to be the standard.

Thus far, DSM-IV does not include “tea party membership” nor advocacy for Libertarianism as a mental disorder.

Excessive hyperbole, however, is an included symptom in many of several categories of DSM-IV described illnesses.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

gryphon, let me ask this. Mental illness or not, how would control of either guns or those who are deemed mentally ill, when he stole the guns to begin with?

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

What made you switch, if I may ask?

Patriot Vet on December 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Liberalism didn’t jive with the history of my father, who was a WWII veteran. The Nam vets being spit on by liberals never sat well with me. I guess that was the start of my political growth.

Later came Carter’s ‘American malaise’ speech, which was the exact opposite of what I grew up believing. Then, finally, were all the liberals who were, really, out of their f*cking minds. They wanted to smoke pot, and maybe go bomb a men’s room at the county courthouse.

Then cam reality: I was a newlywed and saw what liberal Carter did: prices going up literally three times a week, taxes out the wazoo, and just the kind of dull drab mundane society like in 1984.

The polish came when Reagan began his campaign. Reagan said things my dad taught thought, though my father never intended to make me a political creature. Reagan told me is right and proper to love my country, when all the libs told was to hate it. Hell! All the libs hated everything. They claimed to be for an end to racism, but I heard the N word more from politically-active liberals than I heard in the lily-white suburban neighborhood where I grew up.

To make a long story short (too late, I know) experience and practical reality turned me away from liberals and their theology. And, truly, I regard liberalism as a theology. The woman I married led me to the Lord, which was more fuel.

I have never looked back, and will die in agony before I might ever return to liberalism.

Liam on December 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

This doesn’t change a thing in my eyes except that the media may have actually reported something accurately on this story for a change.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

How do we know they got it right? How do we even know for sure what his problem was or if there is medication to treat. Yesterday, Rush said that the media was saying his was a vegan. Again, no way of knowing if it is true, but not S.O.P for a sociopath.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

gryphon, let me ask this. Mental illness or not, how would control of either guns or those who are deemed mentally ill, when he stole the guns to begin with?

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

He was able to steal the guns because of one delay after another in his conservatorship process. Those 20 children at Sandy Hook were sacrificed on the altar of “due process.”

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

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.

Consider the source.

Old Country Boy on December 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

The black hole of mental health.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!!! – John Wiley Price

Resist We Much on December 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

We have taken humility and self deprecation to new lows. I don’t understand why our media and the liberal half of our politicos think it is advantageous to market our nation, and its people as the source of all that is evil.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM

How do we know they got it right? How do we even know for sure what his problem was or if there is medication to treat. Yesterday, Rush said that the media was saying his was a vegan. Again, no way of knowing if it is true, but not S.O.P for a sociopath.

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I said they may have got it right. I don’t know any more than you do. What I do know is this: The state of Connecticut failed to protect Mrs. Lanza and those 26 individuals at Sandy Hook. That’s enough to make me seethe with rage.

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM

What are you talking about, fool? Laws don’t apply to the government. You been living under a rock for the last five years?

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Hey, you’d still have the schadenfreude of the left as a small consolation prize — even if the feds suddenly decided to use HIPPA like Charmin, you’d still have the conflicted liberals who even to this day remain in denial about the mental health aspect of gun violence, and the fact that it was their efforts to limit mandatory treatment for the mentally ill that have allowed those same people to remain out and about and able to access guns (Geraldo Rivera can tweet about the horror of Newtown all he wants, but if Geraldo doesn’t make his career going overboard on the Willowbrook reforms 40 years ago, which ABC and others in the big media turned into a national crusade, odds are the ability to confine people who are a danger to themselves and others would be a lot easier today).

jon1979 on December 19, 2012 at 10:25 AM

But if guns are not the problem, how can we say gun-free zones are? Doesn’t there still have to be a motive, even if that motive is mental illness? Let’s not forget that Adam Lanza was literally certifiable. I can not stress that enough. More guns? Fewer guns? More laws? Fewer laws? Wait just a cotton-pickin’ second! The dude was dangerous! How come I’m not hearing more debate over why it was so difficult for Mrs. Lanza to have her son recognized as dangerous by the state? Should this not have been an easy call? At what point does “due process” endanger innocent individuals as it appears to have done at Sandy Hook Elementary?!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The problem is and has always been you will never lock up nor catch all the crazies , crimnals, rapists etc. As madison said if all men were angles….

There is evil out in the world. It is reality. No government can eridcate evil, crazy or whatever you want to call it. The founders understood that. every government that tries fails.

Therefore as free men it is our responsibility and our governments responsibility that we have the tools to protect ourselves from the crazies. And that means abolishment of gun free zones and gun control laws. To simply lock up anyone you are threatened by defining them as crazy is a straight ticket to dictatorville.

their is a porcess in place toget people locked away who are threats to society its called the justice system. the system is broken because it is made by man. We do have a responsibility to fix that system and strengthen it but it at best is a bandaid solution. We can increase the court system, fast track the mental cases before judges etc. in crease the size and expertise of public defenders. give parents more rights so they can get their children the help they need but we can do all that wiothout destroying our rights to jury trials and due process.

But ultimatly it comes down two differnet views. Is it the governments job to protect us from ourselves or is it the free man responsibility to protect himself? If you think the answer is government your only logical conclusion is to disarm the entire population so only the government has the right to use deadly force. If you fall like I do on the side that it is the free man’s responsibility to protect ourselves than the only logical conclusion is to give people all the tools they can have to carry out the job. That means not disarming them in certain zones. It means giving them weapons that can and will stop the craies not a 6 shooter but weapons that match those of the crazies.

once you start down the thought police side of the equation you end up in a very real and ugly place.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Those 20 children at Sandy Hook were sacrificed on the altar of “due process.”

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Go talk to all the prisonoers in Saddams Jails or the USSR’s gulags about due process and ask them if they thought due process was something not worth sacrificing for.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM

He was able to steal the guns because of one delay after another in his conservatorship process. Those 20 children at Sandy Hook were sacrificed on the altar of “due process.”

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

He was also able to steal the guns because his mom didn’t keep them locked up. He was also able to steal the guns because he was considered a genius. He also was able to steal the guns because he knew how to beat the “system”.

There are going to be excuses until one of the media can explain what really happened. But even then will we ever really know? We really don’t know if he was an aspie. We also don’t know if he has mental issues, but only what the media tells us. It is obvious he was disturbed, though I am not going to totally judge until after more comes out which may be never.

Why didn’t his father help his ex wife get him committed if he was totally out of control? Why didn’t his brother also try to help commit him? Was he only violent with his mother, until recent events?

To many questions. And I personally don’t want to go back to the way mentally ill and disabled persons were treated in Asylums.

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Excessive hyperbole, however, is an included symptom in many of several categories of DSM-IV described illnesses.

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

In the Soviet Union, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place.[1][2][3]:406[4][5][6]:19[7]:47[8]:293[9][10]:66[11]:490[12]:52 Soviet psychiatric hospitals known as “psikhushkas” were used by the authorities as prisons in order to isolate hundreds or thousands of political prisoners from the rest of society, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally.[13] This method was also employed against religious prisoners and most especially against well-educated former atheists who adopted a religion. In such cases their religious faith was determined to be a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.[14] Formerly highly classified extant documents from “Special file” of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union published after the dissolution of the Soviet Union demonstrate that the authorities of the country quite consciously used psychiatry as a tool to suppress dissent.[15]

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, it was often reported that some opposition activists and journalists were detained in Russian psychiatric institutions in order to intimidate and isolate them from society.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] In modern Russia, human rights activists also face the threat of psychiatric diagnosis as a means of political repression.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Since many commenters here are tip-toeing around the issue, I’ll say it: It needs to be easier than it is. Adam Lanza’s mother was pursuing conservatorship, but it took her too damn long. Connecticut not only has some of the most restrictive gun laws, but also has some of the most hellacious red tape when it comes to involuntary committal. Every single day that Mrs. Lanza had to spend in pursuit of getting her son the help he needed was a day she sat on a ticking time bomb. And the real b!tch of it is, she knew it!

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 9:28 AM

.
It doesn’t fit the Liberal/Socialist based narrative, so keep your common sense, reality based logic to yourself.

Or not. . . : )

listens2glenn on December 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Unless we are each assigned a body guard, I think it is unrealistic to count on the police. I harken back to the conflicting reports, some have said that the police got there within minutes and others of said twenty minutes. I think the death count would be higher if it was indeed twenty minutes. There are far too many things we just don’t know. If I had to guess, Mrs. Lanzo sounded like she would have been a responsible gun owner, which in my view, would have meant they would not be available to her son, and yet she was killed with one in her sleep. At this point, the only description of this kid is that he was quiet, withdrawn and unsocial, if he had never displayed any violent tendencies, she may have been comfortable with the guns being available to him. At this point we don’t know much and I hate to blame anyone but the killer. Who in the world thought anyone would fly planes into skyscrapers? And yet…..

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM

O T:

Joe Paggs on the Glenn Beck radio broadcast is interviewing the Texas school superintendent who authorized school personnel to “carry”.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

O T:

Joe Paggs on the Glenn Beck radio broadcast is interviewing the Texas school superintendent who authorized school personnel to “carry”.

listens2glenn on December 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

finally some commonsense.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

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

To many questions. And I personally don’t want to go back to the way mentally ill and disabled persons were treated in Asylums.

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:30 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

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 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

This is tough to say But its what must be done. Every shooting in a gun free zone must be used by our side to defeat gun free zones. Every murder in a gun control city or state needs to be highlighted. the differences in gun control state viloient crime rates vs those in less gun controllled states must be pushed. The liberals need to fought on this issue with facts. the CT shooting is a prime example of how liberal policies kill yes kill our children. The dem/leftist party is nothing but the party of death and their dreams must be stoppped at all costs.

unseen on December 19, 2012 at 10:44 AM

antisense on December 19, 2012 at 10:40 AM

because if you or anyone in your family are considered depressed via psychological staff, then you or your family member has a mental illness. DUH!

upinak on December 19, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Cindy Munford on December 19, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Cindy, Adam Lanza had a disorder that caused him to literally be unable to feel pain. His own mother feared for herself and everyone around her. She tried to have him committed. HIS MOTHER. How much longer are we going to continue to accept media narrative on this?

gryphon202 on December 19, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Comment pages: 1 2