An opinion on gun control

Page 4 of 6  


An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older - about one in four adults - suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.
<http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disord ers-in-america/index.shtml>
If you draw a Venn diagram of gun owners and mental illness sufferers, it's pretty much a given that they will intersect.

Both very smart people and very dumb people get schizophrenia. IQ alone can't protect someone from the changes that schizophrenia and other mental diseases cause. If you've ever had a friend or a loved one descend into this particular hell, you know it spares no one. Not the geniuses, not the beautiful, not those with great promise, not anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
<<Common symptoms include auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction. The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood.>>
Many of the mass shooters in the US succumbed to this disease or are thought to have had it. The diagnosis can't be reliably made after they're killed themselves (although that doesn't stop many "media shrinks" from trying!)

Maybe not "crazy" but maybe not completely sane either. One thing I remember vividly from an article about Golden Gate Bridge "jumpers" was one of the few survivors who said "On the way down I realized that there was nothing so drastically wrong with my life that it couldn't be fixed - except for jumping off the bridge."
Like most things humans do, there's a continuum. Only a very, very small percentage of suicides are mass-murder suicides. Many more are murder-suicides and the bulk are just plain suicides.
What's different about those that end their lives alone and those that seek to take others with them? I don't think we know yet, but I know that finally there's money being allocated for such research. Further down the road we may be faced with what to do when we discover someone has the "mass murder" gene (if there is one). As a nation, we've longed ago decided we can't lock up people (mostly) for what they have not yet done or may never do.

I have to disagree. Most normal people don't kill themselves or others. That behavior only tends to reinforce the idea that they are not "built the same" as other people. Given that such a tiny minority choose mass murder, I believe that indicates its extremely aberrant behavior which is typical of mental illness. The Texas Tower shooter turned out to have a brain tumor. Other shooters like Jared Loughner and the Norway killer are obviously out of their minds. My opinion is that when you kill people you don't know and have no grudge against, you're insane.

A good idea, in the abstract, but I can see a lot of reasons why it might fail in the field. When I was covering the Whitehouse for UP, I got to see the Whitehouse mailroom where all the "nutcase" mail containing threats to the POTUS were sorted out and forwarded to the Secret Service for "disposition." With 30 different people a day announcing their intent to kill the President via mail and now (traceable) email, it's obvious to me that there are more sick people out there than most people imagine. Too many to reliably predict who will snap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html
<<Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.>>
That was written in 2009. I am sure it's increased by now.
The brutal truth is that a database of everyone who's acted weird, had mental health issues or made threats at one time or another would be so large its value in predicting when the next person crosses over into mass-murder would not be very great.
The USSS does maintain a database of threats against the President and they try to make sure they know the whereabout of such people before the President makes a local appearance, but for every mentally ill person that advertises their desire to assassinate the POTUS we can only guess at the number of them that are slightly smarter than that and harbor their grudges in secret.
One interesting article that I read recently stated that many of these mass-murderers weren't particularly secretive about their plans before their committed their atrocities. Could they have been stopped if they had gotten mental health treatment? I have my doubts. My friend's best friend stepped in front of a train after presenting himself at a local ER saying he "felt as if we was a danger to himself or others." They released him after a short observation period. One hour later he was dead and some poor train engineer was traumatized over having killed someone.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Very interesting article. It takes thirty counter sniper teams to protect one man (Obama). Not much chance of one armed guard protecting a school then.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

High intelligence and mental illness are not mutually exclusive -- just because the guy's smart, doesn't mean he isn't crazy too.

Yes, it does. Sane people don't commit mass murder.

Throwing your *own* life away in suicide *may* be a sane, rational decision (though some may disagree). Taking multiple strangers is NOT sane or rational.

Suicide isn't, no. Mass murder is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nonsense. People commit murder who are perfectly sane. Is someone who kills one person sane but two is insane? Three? What is the cutoff?

Of course it is. People want to be remembered after death and this is certainly one way to do it. Might be the only (rational) way some people can see their way clear. That and avenging old wrongs, is more or less rational.

Not remotely always.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, but people who commit mass murder are not.

One way to do it, yes. Rational, no.

That's *not* rational.

So in what fashion is the mass murder of strangers "avenging old wrongs"? In what fashion is the mass murder of strangers "rational"?

Ummm, yes. Always.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rfectly sane.

Accroding to YOUR view of life. Hardly something to inflict on entire populations.

Again, according to you. This is very much goal directed behavior, just because it doesn't fit within your psychological context (or mine, for that matter) doesn't automatically make it mental illness.

Again to YOUR mind. The insistence on always calling everything you don't seem to understand mental illness seems to be losing it rationality to me.

What is it irrational.. other than you don't understand it?

See above about rationality.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you think it *is* rational... well, you perhaps should seek help.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Following your argument, then insanity would be an immediate and airtight defense in any trial for a mass murderer. They, by definition, would be insane and could not be found guilty. Clearly that is not the way the legal system works because the world doesn't use your definition. And I'm sure if you look at the long' list of defendants that have faced trial for mass murder, you will find plenty that were judged sane and then tried and found guilty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, and it probably should be, too -- at least in jurisdictions such as Indiana, in which "not guilty by reason of insanity" hasn't been an option since about 1975 (Google "Tony Kiritsis" to find out why; the law here was modified in the wake of that case). Now, if the accused's sanity is questionable, an Indiana jury can return a verdict of "guilty but insane", and the person is sent to a mental hospital for the same length of time he would spend in prison if he were sane; if he is later found to be sane, he spends the remainder of the time in prison.

It works that way in some (but IMHO not nearly enough) parts of the world; see above re Indiana.

And plenty that were judged insane, too.
But all that is beside the point. You're missing the subtext here, trader. There's a hidden agenda behind the declaration that mass murder is a "rational" act: if it's rational, then *anyone* is a potential mass murderer. In this scenario, then, since potential mass murderers cannot be trusted with firearms, and all of us are potential mass murderers, then confiscating firearms is justifiable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

Indiana, in which "not

(Google "Tony Kiritsis"

if the accused's

insane", and the

spend in prison if he

time in prison.
Doug, I am not sure that's the precise outcome of the Kiritsis case, which was a quite sensational event for journalists at the time because so much of it was broadcast live complete with Tony's swearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kiritsis says:
<<Kiritsis was released from a mental institution in January 1988, after the state could not prove he was still a danger to society. He died in 2005.At the time of the trial, Indiana law (and that of some other states) required the prosecution to disprove a defendant's claim of insanity, i.e. to prove the defendant sane, beyond a reasonable doubt. Directly as a result of the Kiritsis trial -- particularly the testimony of chief defense psychiatrist Larry M. Davis -- and the trial of John Hinckley, Jr., Indiana among other states substantially revised their law to place the burden of proof for insanity-pleading defendants squarely on the shoulders of the defense.>>
http://ac-support.europe.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Kiritsis.html was written by his attorney:
<<At the time of Tony's trial, the burden of proof (where an insanity defense was interposed) was on the state to prove that the accused was sane; and the state (in Indiana, but few other states) had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. This had been the law in Indiana for about 160 years. Although that was a very high burden for the state to meet, few people had ever found "not guilty by reason of insanity.">>
There's a good summary of the changes brought about by public reaction to the Hinckley case here:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/hinckleyinsanity.htm

trader.
My, what a surprise. (-: He often misses the plain text, too.

"rational" act:

Given that 44 of the most recent 62 mass killers were white men, I could point to a few eternally bellicose people posting here that I wouldn't trust with a burned out match, let alone a Beretta. It's really just simple arithmetic. Look at the numbers - how many shooters (62) out of say 150 million Americans capable of committing these acts - and then how many of them have turned out to have severe mental or medical problems (Texas Tower shooter Charles Whitman, one of the very first mass shooters had a brain tumor).
The remarkable intersection of those two universes implicates mental illness pretty thoroughly. It's clear someone who goes on a shooting rampage like Whitman's isn't faking mental problems. He's the real deal and his case strongly infers that others who commit similar crimes suffer from similarly serious mental impairments.
The only people that can believe most mass shooters are sane are those that have never had real contact with the severely mentally ill or are buying into what appears to be the latest round of NRA propaganda. For several years prior, Loughner had displayed signs of serious mental illness, including outbursts during his high school classes and complaints about voices in his head. Nevertheless, he was able to stroll into a Sportsmen's Warehouse in Tucson and purchase a weapon and ammunition legally.

with firearms,

justifiable.
It seems confiscation is the only way to keep guns out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza but that horse left the barn a long time ago. Barring a second Civil War where the outcome results in pacification of the losers by confiscation, it's not going to happen. The saddest part of that conclusion is that I am not convinced we'll be able to avoid a second Civil War. The US is getting more polarized and less polite by the day.
I believe the relevance of the Kiritsis decision today is a bad one for gun advocates. It once again proved, like the 1934 National Firearms Act, that people demand changes to even long-standing laws when their sensibilities have been offended. People on both sides get infuriated, often due to the media's saturation coverage and editorializing. Unfortunately Newtown has made a lot of people angry. Angry enough to upset the current status quo.
I've seen what happens to parents that have to bury their children. It's the worst reversal you can encounter in life. It shatters many families beyond repair. I can almost guarantee that one or more of those mothers will preserve their child's bedroom just as it was on the fateful day for years and years to come. One mom sat in her murdered son's favorite chair, wearing his jacket and weeping every night. One of the LIRR shooting widows won a seat in Congress on a gun-control platform.
Polls shows that a majority of Americans favor bans on high-capacity ammunition mags and military-style assault weapons. A huge majority - 74 percent in a recent Washington Post/ABC News survey -also say it is "acceptable" to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/many-see-societal-issues-in-ct-shootings-most-back-ban-on-high-capacity-clips /
I suspect that many arch-conservatives are going to end up being as disappointed over new gun controls as they were over Obama's re-election. And the coming increase in taxes.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having talked with most of the main players over my years as a PsychRn in Indy, I can state that there was, indeed, a cause-and-effect relationship. FWlittleIW
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 05:00:44 +0000, nestork

Killing large groups of people then is normal? I have to disagree. Taking your own life may be desperation, but taking a bunch of people with you is some sort of abnormality.
Being very intelligent is not a guarantee of saneness either. If you look back in history, many of the smartest people in the world were out of our accepted definition of "normal" Take a given odd behavior with a poor person and he is crazy but a wealthy person is eccentric. Taking care of mental illness is one of the points brought up with the recent shootings. Problem is, how do you diagnose and know who is going to do such a thing? It is not so simple as looking for people with a blue dot on their nose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But not always mental illness, at least as currently understood. What happens is that most people can't fathom the why in their own context so it MUST be an illness. Could be any number of things such as upbringing, life experiences (many tend have been bullied and are striking back at not only the bullies but those they see as those who failed to protect them... certainly a rational outlook if not response)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/24/2012 11:00 PM, nestork wrote:

When I tutored kids with learning problems, the hyperactive kids were not stupid, in fact they were bored out of their minds and really hungry for knowledge. This was more than 40 years ago before little boys were drugged for behaving like little boys. Imagine a generation of children who's developing minds and bodies are fundamentally altered by the drugs that have been forced on them by foolish educators. What on earth did they think the consequences of pushing these drugs would be? What did they think would happen when the essence and impulsiveness of childhood is suppressed so a developing mind can not be trained to cope with life and to learn self control. I'm going to hazard a guess that the young men and teens who committed the mass murders were drugged as schoolchildren. I wonder if anyone is looking into it and if the mainstream media will even report it because it might shoot down (pun intended) one of the sacred cows of the Leftist who infest the government school educational system? O_o
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 25, 1:25pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net> wrote:

A lot of these problems are caused by the survival of premature babies who would never have survived in the past. A large minority grow up mentally abnormal. It can be argued that nature knows what it's doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_baby#Prognosis
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 25 2012, 1:25pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky- finger.net> wrote:

There is research shows a lot of disfunctional kids were prematurely born. Years ago they would not have survived.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would not call someone who decides to commit a massacre "level headed". And there is a distinction between being crazy to the point that you don't know right from wrong and just having a mental illness. The Aurora guy was seeing a psychiatrist, so he must have had some mental problems. Perhaps in time we'll find out what exactly they were.

The problem with that would seem to be that I haven't seen evidence that these latest folks who committed these acts felt their lives have been wasted and that they are a failure.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you're claiming that just because "he's got a lot of gray stuff", the gray stuff was functionning properly ?? Mental ilness is about the "grey stuff" functions, INDEPENDANT of how much you may have And NO, if the grey stuff is NOT working properly, you may NOT know the difference between right and wrong.

It the act is "crazy" in comparison to general behavior, then guess what ? So where did you do your studies in "mental health" ???

Where did you get the silly notion that "the NRA wants the US Government to put together a list of mentally ill people" ? HELLO ? Are you crazy ?

Stop talking about yourself...

Go ahead Don't forget to put your name down first..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A libertarian solution, at least.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are you dribbling on about? After we had sorted out Napolean, we drove you out of Washington and burned the place down. The commander of the British army sat in the White House and ate the US president's dinner. Then he burned it down. Meanwhile all the yellowbelly Yanks had run. We let you keep the fetid place because we had no use for it.
Boy they teach you some funny history lessons where ever you were educated.
Oh, it was Hollywood! They never made an epic John Wayne film about the sack of Washington. Funny that eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_washington
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.