Another mass shooting in America

[narad]

Yup, which is why the vastly superior American military was able to swoop in and swiftly defeat the hostile forces of and end hostilities in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

All scenarios where the intent was to suss out and destroy insurgencies with minimal civilan casualties. It was always the inability to identify and isolate targets that mitigated the superior American firepower. But when a government declares war on its own people history has shown that civilian casualties are not a big part of the equation. When you strip away any accountability, lol, you'd lose anyway.

 

[flint757]

You're missing the point, guns or no guns folks will still kill each other, just with other tools. Look up the Bath School Massacre for an example. No guns there, but still some crazy dipsharts killed a LOAD of kids. The myopia of guns = evil is just astounding. Guns are no more or less evil than a spork.

The intent to use an item that is not involved in mass killings to belittle the significance of gun violence makes your argument less viable IMO. In fact, for most people advocating that position, they'd have a lot more credence if they left out the BS slippery slopes all together.

To think that by disarming a populace it is safer, it isn't. Laws don't keep anyone safe, they only allow for greater punishment once a crime as been done and the perp is caught. Drugs are pretty much illegal everywhere and there is NO illegal drug trade. Right?

Exactly, the punishment can be harsher. In fact, if guns were made less accessible, and a police officer saw a man with a weapon he could question said person before something may or may not happen. In the current scenario, especially in a place like Texas, they can't do that because a lot of people carry as is. It would be deemed profiling by the NRA most likely too. And, guess what, crime isn't lower as a side effect either. Go figure. The south overall has looser gun laws and we have an overall higher rate of murder/crime. It also seems too that the death penalty almost seems to encourage murder based on the statistics as well. Isn't relevant, but is interesting (and I'm typically pro death penalty).

It seems that a lot of these things are more from poverty and mental health than anything else. If you are unstable or poor enough that you need to steal, someone carrying isn't going to deter you.

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crime rates vary greatly across the states. Overall, New England had the lowest crime rates, for both violent and property crimes. New England states also had the lowest homicide rates in the country.
A closer look at per capita homicide rates for each state from FBI Uniform Crime Reports Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that Louisiana's per capita homicide rate has ranked first every single year from 1989 to 2010, which is 22 consecutive years.
Southern states had the highest overall crime rates. Crime can also be isolated to one particular part of a state. Lafayette, Louisiana, for instance had 6 murders per 100,000 people in 2004, while New Orleans, Louisiana, had 56 murders per 100,000 people according to Bureau of Justice Statistics for the same year.[52]
Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Minnesota and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.

Based on this guns haven't made crime rates better otherwise the North East would be overall worse than the majority of the South. I am, however, aware that it has nothing to do with gun ownership directly. It has to do with poverty, education and the overall wealth of its populace. In the South poverty is higher and education is worse so it makes sense that crime would also be worse. This is a problem that absolutely needs to be fixed.

Texas Crime Rate Drop Indicates Progress

Significantly, this crime rate drop came while Texas’ incarceration rate dropped 1.45 percent, it closed a prison, and it continued to emphasize alternatives to incarceration for low-level non-violent offenders.

This is also interesting, crime dropped when we reformed our legal system. Again gun ownership had nothing to do with it (just for clarification).

So what's my point? You owning a gun does not lower crime rates and doesn't solve the problem as a society. It doesn't necessarily contribute either, but it doesn't help as much as people have diluted themselves into believing.

Since we're all about tossing away liberty, let's look at something like...

It's not a right, it's a privilege. That is notable simply by the fact that to carry certain weapons requires certain paperwork, licensing, etc. and you can't legally buy ANYTHING you want either. It is just like driving, which is also a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't see people like you yelling in the street that someone is being denied their license to drive either (well AARP might be ).

Statistically speaking you're more apt to die by a doctor than a gun. Doctors kill more people a year than guns and car accidents combined. Should doctors be banned?

Statistically speaking serial killers are predominantly white males. Should the cops be able to kick down the doors of any and all white males any time they see fit, track any and all white males, deny them access to the internet, and relegate them all to second class citizens?

Pedophiles seem to be all white guys too, should all white males be forced to have no liberty in the name of safety of children. Cops able to do what they want, when they want to whomever they want on a whim?

High compression engines mean that cars might go fast and break the speed limit, should those be banned?

You might say something that offends some lily hearted person, should freedom of speech be banned?

Lemme guess, you'll say no to all those but still say guns should be banned because of what the few might do and no matter what is said there is nothing that will change your mind.

Here goes the slippery slope

As for cars, there are certain modifications that can make your car no longer street legal (some cars aren't all together) and we do not have absolute freedom of speech as is (hate speech, threats, dangerous situations, at airports, at schools, if you say something that can implicate you in a crime, etc.) so if you are going to build an argument, it should probably be with something that better supports your opinion.

Here's a few more "truths" you might like if you believe that. The world is flat. Jesus existed, was white, and came back from the dead.

Ahhh the condescension, how I do love it.

Once the gov't disarms you, it enslaves you and then it eradicates you if it wants to. Don't believe me?
What did we do to the Native Americans? The Nazis used our formula to slaughter those 12 million people!

How about the camps we had for the Japanese Americans during WWII?

<puts tin foil hat on>

Totally man. Completely agree!!!

<takes hat off>

Since incidents like WWII, with the Nazi's and Japanese camps, our law has been significantly reformed. It would not be put up with today at all, also. To think that without your gun you might end up in an internment camp is borderline asinine.

Same with Native Americans, slavery, etc. That was a time when people felt superior to others at a much higher rate than exists today publicly. Doing what people did back then was normal by the standards of the time. Would not fly today...

We can look at the past for guidance, but not as a direct example for what will happen in any given circumstance. History can and sometimes does repeat itself, but not to the level you are insinuating.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. Too many and too many with defects.

Derek

Completely agree, people are a problem. Not regulating or having certain laws is not the answer though. We can handle both simultaneously; We don't have to choose. Don't actually know why people keep presenting it in such a manner in the first place.

 

[flint757]

Your concerned with numbers? How about Jonestown Massacre? What was the weapon used in that?

Are gun related deaths much much more? Absolutely. Dont think that making fire arms and ammunition illegal will make horrible horrible deaths non existent.

Then doing something about guns would be a good thing. No one here AT ALL has argued that crime would disappear if guns did.

I'm not going to read through 8 pages to see if it was mentioned, but did anyone hear about the shooting in a Portland, OR mall on the Tuesday before Newtown? Two people were shot before a concealed carrier drew on the shooter, and without the carrier firing a single shot, the shooter committed suicide. It could have been as deadly, or more so, (given to how crowded malls can be this time of year) than Newtown, had that carrier not interrupted the shooter.

So the carrier did not shoot him? I fail to see a direct correlation. For any argument a hand full of examples doesn't make either side more or less right.

I wonder how many such incidents occur that we don't hear about at the national level because they are stopped before the shooter can kill anyone.

No idea, but with the internet if a multitude of incidents existed I'm sure you could find them. It isn't exactly a conspiracy. Hell, I'd be surprised if things like what you are describing didn't end up on the NRA's main web page. They look for any supporting arguments they can.

All of you, claiming gun control is needed, are in need of a reality check. This same kind of tragedy could happen with a knife. And it does. See this, and these. (both are links to Wikipedia) If you could somehow manage to get all of the guns out of private hands, (itself a uselessly futile attempt, no matter the laws, as we see in European countries which have banned guns and yet still have guns all over the streets), they would use knives. Take away the knives, they'll use bats. Take away the bats, they'll use rocks. It will not end. Plus, guns stolen from police - Google Search. Even if you managed to take away all the guns from all private citizens IN THE WORLD, it would not end. "Oh, but without guns the death toll would be lower" you cry? BULLSHIT.

No one has claimed anything different (well someone might have, I'm not paying close enough attention). At the very least I'm not.

To insinuate (using such incidents) that things wouldn't be better is just as ridiculous though. The numbers/fatality of such incidents if knives, bats, shoes, or whatever someone can come up with would be lower than if said person in the same situation had a gun. Always (assuming that it is feasible to do so in each circumstance).

The only 2 example, off the top of my head, that could match or exceed those numbers would be a bomb or something like 9/11, but after 9/11 we increased regulation and security to the extent that an incident has not occurred since. As for bombs, countries that have incredibly strict gun laws do not have a bomb problem. In fact, in the case that someone was going to use a gun the next thing they'd reach for, most likely, is a knife not a bomb. So again, number of casualties/fatalities would more than likely go down (as well as overall incidents as the results might not be good enough for a suicide mission of that caliber (but that is pure speculation on my part). I'm not implying that a knife isn't deadly or that it isn't more so than a gun on the individual basis, but even so you can only stab so many people before someone starts to notice. It would take a lot longer to rack up the casualties and it seems that more people seem to survive these encounters overall.

It is an uphill battle, but doing nothing is not a solution at all. Even if we can't get rid of all the guns currently in circulation they can enact buy back programs (something poor people with guns would probably do) to get some back. At the very least there needs to be regulation on future and current ownership, that is the first step necessary either way. You can't empty the boat without fixing the hole first and right now it's overflowing.

All of you clamoring for gun control, and especially those in politics using this incident for political firewood, should be ashamed of yourselves for building your bully pulpit on the graves of the dead. This is an issue of mental health, not guns. It was mental health, in Aurora. It was mental health, in Columbine. It has been mental health in the majority, if not every single mass shooting to happen within my lifetime.

And I'm going to rail on the current mental health system, as well. Most issues of mental health start with the diet. A brain, lacking in certain elements that it needs, and/or taking in chemicals that negatively affect it, will have disorders. PERIOD. A full blood workup should be done on anyone before any counseling should begin, as physical health is mandatory for mental health. Yet this does not occur, and at least in Aurora, we confirmed that drugs were being used to mask the problem. I've a gut feeling we'll hear something regarding medication about the Newtown shooter, I've already just read that he had been to counseling.

To make the previous point a little more personal, I had anger issues when I was younger, which lost me more than one good job. Since changing my diet, I've managed to control my anger, and channel that energy into my work, my playing, or whatever else I may be doing. (Like this post, for example)

Ashamed? No. In almost all of the incidents you mentioned the guns were from legal owners these people knew. Even if they would have still used something else, the numbers would be lower and that does make a difference. It is still tragic, but less is better universally. No one has claimed that the people who commit these acts aren't mentally ill and don't need help either. Quite the opposite actually. However, we don't allow blind people to get a drivers license and you can't buy a car for actual use by said person if you are blind (since people are making ridiculous arguments I figured i would too ). Yet it is ridiculously easy for me to procure a weapon. Most people are asking for more regulation for the exact things you described too like better health screenings, more thorough checking overall, etc. that is more regulation is it not? Mental illness, even if we took better care of it, would still exist as well, so more regulation to prevent even the smaller subset would still be necessary.

tl;dr: Gun control? FUCK OFF.

The preceding message was written entirely without intention of using government as a means of improvement in any way. What we need are societal changes, which government cannot provide. Just in case anyone was confused, and thought I had switched sides from my previous comments on this forum.

No thank you.

The NRA, if it were willing to be more proactive than it has ever been, could probably take on some of the responsibility on its own (much like the RIAA and MPAA have actually, though I disagree with those institutions). In fact, bills could stipulate certain things that are completely governed by the NRA or some other 3rd party group. We have certain systems in place already that work kind of like that. It doesn't happen because people like you (and many more) take the fuck off approach which means you are unwilling to compromise at all.

The government is not evil or out to get anyone (in the general sense) and does in fact do some things pretty well.

As for your wiki links:

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]

The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]

With a gun the situation would have been a lot worse and more survived than died in the cases you presented. Given proximity, with a gun everyone who was directly attacked would probably be dead at such a close range.

How many died in the incident we are discussing? 27 How many wounded? As far as I can find, none.


It is all terrible and disgusting that doing this can even cross someones mind, but discussing remedies does not make anyone a terrible person.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

All scenarios where the intent was to suss out and destroy insurgencies with minimal civilan casualties. It was always the inability to identify and isolate targets that mitigated the superior American firepower. But when a government declares war on its own people history has shown that civilian casualties are not a big part of the equation. When you strip away any accountability, lol, you'd lose anyway.

I suppose it'd depend whether the US gov't was turning its weapons on ALL civilians or just the ones who aren't playing along, and to what degree they'd care about civilian casualties. If they decided to just nuke and/or carpet bomb their entire population (for some unfathomable reason), then sure, the civilians would have no chance. If they were trying to seek out and eliminate pockets of resistance, however, it'd be a different story entirely.

IlikebigBUTtsandicannotlie,

As I've said before, that's never going to happen. Not ever. Never ever ever. I'm not even going to bother to use my usual qualifiers here, so confidant am I in the impossibility of such an event ever taking place. That's what people should say when someone says they want to keep their assault rifles just in case the government turns on its own people, not tell them how futile resistance would be.

It keeps coming up, though, so perhaps it's just me...

 

[bigchocolateman]

I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.

It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.

How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.

Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.

 

[Randy]

I'm not going to read through 8 pages to see if it was mentioned

This is your warning and the warning of everybody else who decides to chime into this thread.

A lot of intelligent points have been made in this thread, on all sides of this debate. No matter what your position on the matter, I'm not going to tolerate people chiming in this late in the game, without reading the rest of the thread to blindly toss out talking points that have already been gone over and threaten to disrupt the civility of this thread.

If I get the feeling somebody came in here to stick their fingers in their ears and troll this thread with talking points just to set off the powder keg, they're getting banned.

 

[Randy]

I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.

It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.

How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.

Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.

Certainly one of the smarter points in this debate and it's been put out there a few times but I haven't heard a single 'nut and bolts' recommendation on how you address this...?

As is your case, how do you get help for somebody who doesn't want it? A lot of talk about the 'assault on liberty' that gun laws would be... what about involuntarily committing everyone who exhibits signs of mental disease?

 

[Konfyouzd]

Didn't someone post a link to that article "I am Adam Lanza's mother" in which the lady willingly put her son into a mental institution? The shitty thing about it is that's not always a feasible option in every case. :-\

I don't think immediately committing people is a good idea, but in the particular case I cited, he'd literally been threatening her for some time so his case was clearly a bit more obvious than others.

Most other examples I can come up with seem a bit farfetched even in my mind, but I can't help but wonder if the fact that we're becoming so busy as a society makes it so that parents don't necessarily pay as much attention as they should to their children all the time. People have brought up before that the children who get in the most trouble are usually those with parents that aren't around as much.

A situation like that can and can't be helped. On the one hand I feel like if you make a child it's unfair to put the responsiblity of raising the kid on someone else, but folks at school should be able to notice signs of deviant behavior as well and notifiy parents accordingly. In conjunction with other methods yet to be named, this could help. And I honestly don't know for a fact how much of it goes on currently, but imagine there's a lot of:

Oh he'll grow out of it...

from some parents and...

Is this really *my* business?

from school officials as I'm sure expressing concern has been known to piss some parents off and unless a faculty member deems the person a direct threat to themselves or others, they may ignore it to save themselves a hassle.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that as well, though.

 

[Randy]

Tons of problems with that being the only course of action. Not all children display noticeable symptoms of mental disease in the first place. Then there's the issue of 'nature vs. nurture', so if the person in question isn't just 'chemically unstable', then chances are they're being raised in a shitty situation, so there's no banking on those same guardians to wise up and take action. Also, a lot of these random shooters go on a killing spree after they're over the age that somebody could have them committed... so once their parents fail to get them help, they're a lost cause and free to roam society until they erupt? Or with the case of Adam Lanza, yeah he displayed symptoms of mental illness but I haven't heard anything about severe fits of violence that would've set off an indication he was going to do what he did... so if we're using that as an kind of a model, what are you supposed to do? Kid acts weird and you lock them up forever?

 

[Konfyouzd]

I never said it should be the only course of action, sir... Just another thing to add to list of things that COULD be done...

Don't lock them up if they seem weird. Keep an eye on them in case they get weird...

I think part of the problem is that people seem to assume that any one thing someone brings up is being put forth as THE answer. Not the case.

 

[Randy]

My original point in this thread is that the problem will required a multi-pronged approach. Part of it has to do with addressing mental illness in some capacity (what exact course of action, I have yet to find reasonable answer to) but also security and gun control (read: not gun abolishment) to address the fact some people will slip through the cracks.

To say it can be all of one, all of the other or nothing at all is shortsighted.

 

[Randy]

I never said it should be the only course of action, sir... Just another thing to add to list of things that COULD be done...

Don't lock them up if they seem weird. Keep an eye on them in case they get weird...

Okay, but how do you put that into a piece of legislation or a social movement? That seems pretty common sense, especially because I've been hearing that same thing since I was a kid and Columbine happened, yet things haven't changed?

 

[Konfyouzd]

Okay...

What am I supposed to do about the fact that people haven't come up with legislation for that? It's a tough situation. We've ALL already come to that conclusion. Common sense isn't always common. And some people would rather make it an issue of gun control. I think that might have something to do with why what I said has been ignored since Columbine. Obviously someone making decisions doesn't agree with me.

 

[Randy]

And I'm going to rail on the current mental health system, as well. Most issues of mental health start with the diet. A brain, lacking in certain elements that it needs, and/or taking in chemicals that negatively affect it, will have disorders. PERIOD. A full blood workup should be done on anyone before any counseling should begin, as physical health is mandatory for mental health.

So, counseling (which is almost entirely voluntary at this point), should require a person to also volunteer to undertake a physical workout and a diet? If we were talking about people rational enough to submit to those kind of things, we probably wouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place...?

Unless somebody here is seriously prescribing involuntary committal, I'm still missing how this makes a single bit of difference?

 

[Konfyouzd]

So explain to us all what WOULD make a difference, then.

Where's your 5 point plan?

I'm not seeing how attempting to monitor the mental state of students and/or citizens when and where possible is any WORSE than just not giving a fuck as we currently seem to do.

 

[Randy]

And some people would rather make it an issue of gun control.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's an example of a time something happened, a piece of gun control legislation was drafted and it had a positive effect. You'll probably read a few of the things in that bill and be shocked that they weren't law until 1993 and even more shocked that there was still opposition. Coincidentally from the same crowd opposing any adjustment to gun laws currently.

If I had all the answers, I probably wouldn't be sitting infront of a computer posting on a forum.

As I said here:

My original point in this thread is that the problem will required a multi-pronged approach. Part of it has to do with addressing mental illness in some capacity (what exact course of action, I have yet to find reasonable answer to) but also security and gun control (read: not gun abolishment) to address the fact some people will slip through the cracks.

The gun thing should be obvious. As I've said a bajillion times, nobody worth listening to is talking about abolishment. Simple things like, if a person isn't qualified to own a gun, people living in a house with the same person shouldn't be allowed to either. There should also be stricter penalties for gun owners who are irresponsible and allow their weapon to fall into the hands of people who commit crimes or injure themselves (in the case of children) with them.

Those are simply preventative measures, as I said, to be taken just as an extra barrier for people who slip through the cracks.

How do you legislate mental illness? As I admitted multiple times, I have no idea how you'd do it without people crying about an incredibly massive governmental overreach. The news the last few days has been about how, up until now, state governments have been defunding mental health programs. I'd say reversing that would be a start. Socially, changing the stigma of "mental disease" so that people or parents are more inclined to volunteer to get help is part of it. As somebody who's had my own bouts with depression/violence, I'm not aware of an organization that makes it convenient to get help unless you're forcibly committed to said program...?

I think TAA had a good point in mentioning the fact that there are a lot of anti-depression/anti-psychotic medications that just paper over the deeper issue. You can alter somebody's mood but you can't alter the person. Between side effects, and the 'ups and downs' of coming off meds, mentally unstable people are still a timebomb. I don't mean it to be flippant, but I seriously do not know how you make a day-and-night difference in those situations without forcefully imprisoning people in mental institutions (which is obviously a terrible idea).

EDIT: I forgot to mention the security thing in the original post.

Police response time is a joke. Not having some kind of security (even if it's trained janitors) is also a joke. Having inconsistent security requirements on schools is a joke. Those are things that are easy to legislate.

 

[synrgy]

So.. I have this nephew. He's the oldest of 3 kids, currently in his earliest 20's.

In his late teens, he was (finally) diagnosed bi-polar. His swings are intense at the best, and frightening/life-threatening at the worst.

Among some of the highlights of his childhood, included are: Being suspended from school for snapping and shoving another kid through a (ground floor, thankfully) window, and having his own parents call the police to their own home to have him temporarily removed and placed in mental institutions, when his swings would include threats upon their lives and the life of my niece - his sister - who was barely a toddler at the time.

Post diagnosis, he is theoretically medicated, but there's no system in place to ensure he takes what he's supposed to.

He never went to college, and he currently holds down a dead-end job at his local Wendy's, where he barely earns just enough to stay in the bottom-income lifestyle he's currently in.

A few weeks ago, when catching up with my other nephew - his younger brother, who shares an apartment with him after recently returning from a 2nd tour in Afghanistan - my sister learned that, in reaction to someone scratching his car, he spent the next several hours throwing a tantrum around the apartment, waving his loaded gun around and threatening to shoot everyone in the building.

Yesterday, he posted this on Facebook:

Im tired of this gun control laws debate to the point of wanting to demonstrate the capabilities of my .45 hollow points on the next person I hear bring it up, i dont care how bad that makes me sound.

He followed that up with further nonsensical ranting, but it's really hard to get past that opening statement.

What I guess I'm getting at here, is that we can't discuss the mental health issue as it relates to violence, without also including in the discussion how they are able to obtain the instruments they use to enact said violence. Frankly, I love this kid, but that has no bearing on the fact that I don't think he has any goddamn business owning a handgun, much less should he or any other untrained, private citizen have access to hollow point ammunition.

I mean, here's a guy who had the textbook shitty childhood (or lack thereof) due to divorces/moves/exposure to gangs/drugs/friends killing themselves or each other, etc. On top of that, he's been diagnosed with a severe mental illness, and has an on-record history of violent outbursts. While I have a hard time believing he would actually ever commit one of these massacres, I'd be kidding myself if I tried to say he wasn't the quintessential poster boy for one.

Do you folks feel differently? Is this clearly unstable kid someone you think should be allowed to wave his handgun around Ohio while it's loaded with hollow point ammunition? If so, why? If not, why? Once you've considered that, further consider how the same logic applies to everyone else, or doesn't, and why.

 

[Randy]

Didn't someone post a link to that article "I am Adam Lanza's mother" in which the lady willingly put her son into a mental institution? The shitty thing about it is that's not always a feasible option in every case. :-\

I don't think immediately committing people is a good idea, but in the particular case I cited, he'd literally been threatening her for some time so his case was clearly a bit more obvious than others.

Most other examples I can come up with seem a bit farfetched even in my mind, but I can't help but wonder if the fact that we're becoming so busy as a society makes it so that parents don't necessarily pay as much attention as they should to their children all the time. People have brought up before that the children who get in the most trouble are usually those with parents that aren't around as much.

A situation like that can and can't be helped. On the one hand I feel like if you make a child it's unfair to put the responsiblity of raising the kid on someone else, but folks at school should be able to notice signs of deviant behavior as well and notifiy parents accordingly. In conjunction with other methods yet to be named, this could help. And I honestly don't know for a fact how much of it goes on currently, but imagine there's a lot of:



from some parents and...



from school officials as I'm sure expressing concern has been known to piss some parents off and unless a faculty member deems the person a direct threat to themselves or others, they may ignore it to save themselves a hassle.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that as well, though.

You added a lot to that post after I read it the first time, so I missed all of that.

Good points and I'd say I can agree on all of that. Still struggling on what direct action to take but still great points. If anything, perhaps it needs to be more of that 'social change'. Making it easy for parents to spend time with their children or something to that effect.

 

[Randy]

What I guess I'm getting at here, is that we can't discuss the mental health issue as it relates to violence, without also including in the discussion how they are able to obtain the instruments they use to enact said violence. Frankly, I love this kid, but that has no bearing on the fact that I don't think he has any goddamn business owning a handgun, much less should he or any other untrained, private citizen have access to hollow point ammunition

My sympathies. I'm afraid for the fact that story and similar are not uncommon.

Probably the main reason I've been so frustrated in this thread is that, you've got a heart-wrenching story that goes right to the base of the problem, but the debate is so wrapped around the mechanics of arguing that "the weapon has nothing to do with it" that we're arguing in circles. As I said previously, these problems need to be broken down into pieces. Your nephew shouldn't have a gun. He needs help. Kids with problems shouldn't have those problems evolve to this point. The stress of the kinda lifestyle that comes with living with a mental illness could probably drive anybody nuts.

 

[Konfyouzd]

Yea my bad. I reread it after I initially posted it and felt it didn't explain enough. And taking any one direction is difficult for me as I see no one solution to it, but rather that the solution may require many changes in many different areas to see the type of change we desire. And to state it any other way is to be ripped apart for having not considered something.