OT: Colorado shooting

[HOF Auto Rookies]

A horrific shooting happened in Colorado at the midnight premiere of Batman. Please pray for the families and friends involved.

[t206hound]

Saw it on the news this morning... I slept in because I went to the triple feature (all three dark knight movies) last night. Just a terrible tragedy.

[CobbSpikedMe]

When my wife I lived in Aurora we used to go that same theater. What a terrible thing to happen.

[E93]

What a terrible tragedy!
JimB

[jimross]

The killer is so sick!! But I don't understand, why picked Batman and not Spiderman?

God Bless Colorado

[HOF Auto Rookies]

The killer is so sick!! But I don't understand, why picked Batman and not Spiderman?

God Bless Colorado

I guess one of the characters in Batman wore a gas mask and riot gear etc, that's what the shooter chose? Idk, but sick indeed.

[UOFLfan7]

Just heard about it on the news today...really sickening...my prayers go out to all of the families involved.

[bh3443]

What a horrible and sense-less tragedy.
It could have been at any theatre with anyone of us there.
Prays go out to all.
God Bless,
Bill Hedin

[whitehse]

A Navy man from my hometown in Illinois was killed in this tragedy. This really hits home to me. What a senseless situation.

[barrysloate]

How does an unstable man like this acquire a huge arsenal of assault weapons with such ease?

[GregMitch34]

How? By living in the USA.

[christopher.herman]

Highly visible NYPD presence at the 6:30AM screening at Lincoln Center IMAX this morning.
--C.

[barrysloate]

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control. I bet the two presidential candidates don't even address it. This will quietly go away as it always does.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control. I bet the two presidential candidates don't even address it. This will quietly go away as it always does.

It's not about gun control, it's about controlling the insane and sick minded

[Babe3Ruth3]

There will be time later to debate about gun control, but lets use this post only to pray for the victims and their family's at this very difficult time.

[forazzurri2axz]

so who IS going to be the expert and identify the "insane and sick minded", since that's your proposed solution.... When you can buy 6000 rounds of ammo online, these things will continue to happen...
despite what the conservatives/right wingers like to say for their political purposes about liberals and gun control, most of us liberals do also support the right to bear arms. BUT shouldn't there be more difficulty in being able to buy the automatic weapons and 6000 rounds of ammo with such ease?? just sayin'

[Orioles1954]

If someone wants to commit mass murder, no gun law is going to stop them. None are. However, I'm interested in the gun control debate not for the sake of random mass murders (which represents a drop in the bucket of overall gun related deaths). Rather, I'm interested in debating gun control on the overall toll they take on a daily basis. Unfortunately, to many, this overall toll is not sexy or sensational and not worthy of immediate debate. Gun control advocates also do not take into consideration a thriving black market which will take hold should such laws take hold.

[Peter_Spaeth]

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control. I bet the two presidential candidates don't even address it. This will quietly go away as it always does.

Personally I thought the Bass Pro shop had a rather nice selection.

http://www.basspro.com/Guns/_/S-999045513

Barry, nobody on either side of the aisle wants to take on the NRA.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

There will be time later to debate about gun control, but lets use this post only to pray for the victims and their family's at this very difficult time.

+1, sorry you are correct

[barrysloate]

I fully believe that every responsible American has the right to own a gun. I think even most people on the left agree with this.

But not an assault weapon. Not a weapon that shoots off fifty bullets in a minute. What possible reason could any private citizen need one of those? I understand there is a black market for pretty much everything. But Mr. Holmes walked into a gun shop and bought it legally. Why was it available to him, or anyone else? Maybe a soldier would need one, maybe a police officer. But not a private citizen.

[barrysloate]

I know Peter, the NRA is always depicted as too powerful to take on. Excuse me for being naive, but why? What are they going to do if you take them on?

[vintagetoppsguy]

God forbid this country should have a sensible debate about gun control.


He obtained the guns legally through the system. He had no criminal background or anything else that would have prevented him from purchasing them. I know that doesn't make it any easier, but given the laws what could have been done differently to keep those guns out of his hands?

What is your definition of gun control? It sounds like gun control means something different to you than it does to me. My version of gun control is to have the proper checks in place to make sure people with criminal backgrounds and/or are mentally unstable are not allowed to purchase guns and/or ammo. It sounds like your version of control is to take away all guns. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I'm wrong then so be it. However, if that is the case, then please explain what gun control means to you.

The City of Chicago has gun control - some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet their murder rate (by handgun) is among the highest in the nation. Bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns.

Maybe you're looking for answers. We all are. What makes someone snap and do something like this? Who knows? But this shouldn't be politicizd. Not now. ABC News tried to do it and it already backfired on them. I'll end with this. I pray for the victims and their families for strength and comfort in this time of tragedy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I know Peter, the NRA is always depicted as too powerful to take on. Excuse me for being naive, but why? What are they going to do if you take them on?

Led by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who was paid $1.26 million in 2008, the NRA in the past two decades has spent more than $100 million on political activities in the United States, according to documents and interviews, including $22 million on lobbying and nearly $75 million on campaigns.

[barrysloate]

David- I know you and I are politically as far apart as two people can be. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a big country, and not everyone thinks the same.

Like I said, Americans have the right to own guns. I know you own one or more, I saw the picture you posted with your hunting rifle and your dog. Perfectly fine, you have every right to do so.

But I'm willing to bet you don't own an assault rifle, and I bet you have no interest in owning one. So how about we start the debate with: why does a private citizen have a legal right to buy a gun that can kill dozens of people in a minute's time? My guess is he didn't buy it to hunt quail.

[barrysloate]

Led by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who was paid $1.26 million in 2008, the NRA in the past two decades has spent more than $100 million on political activities in the United States, according to documents and interviews, including $22 million on lobbying and nearly $75 million on campaigns.

That's all fine Peter, but why doesn't anyone in a position of power have the balls to challenge them?

[carrigansghost]

NRA vs. AARP. No politician would take either side.

Rawn

[barrysloate]

Politicians won't take on rent control or rent stabilization either...what's with these wusses?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Barry,

You actually clarified your comments as I was making that post. No, I do not own an assault rifle. Even though I do support gun ownership, I do feel differently about assault rifles.

Consider this though. He also had 2 Glock .40 caliber handguns and a Remington shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with those three even without the assualt rifle. Given the fact that 70 people were shot, it's really a miralce that more weren't were killed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's all fine Peter, but why doesn't anyone in a position of power have the balls to challenge them?

Of course not, it's all about getting elected, but you knew that.

[barrysloate]

I understand David that the other guns were perfectly legal and anyone can buy them. I guess in the end there is no explanation for why someone would snap and do something like that. And I also understand he could have gotten an assault rifle illegally if he couldn't buy one in a store. I admit I don't know what the answer is. But I still believe this is a teachable moment (please don't ask me what it teaches) and having a debate about gun control is okay. We probably will never come to a meeting of the minds but I hate the fact it's always swept under the carpet because nobody wants to take on the NRA. That's all I'm saying. Any topic is fair game.

[barrysloate]

Of course not, it's all about getting elected, but you knew that.

How about after they get elected? How about if you're serving your second and last term and can't get elected any more?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Heck, Barry, the NRA is an American institution, just like, say, the Boy Scouts. Why would anyone take them on?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/missouri-eagle-scout-eric-jones-loses-boy-scouts-job-article-1.1115649

[barrysloate]

I'd keep my eye on those boy scouts too...slippery bunch.

That story is another can of worms. But we can leave it be for now.

[Runscott]

What makes someone snap and do something like this?

I think that Barry is right about assault rifles - certainly, disasters like this would be 'not as bad' if we could keep the heavy artillery out of the equation.

But your question is the key. People tend to simply say that because this guy was ultra-prepared, that he was a sane, but extremely evil person, and should be injected immediately. Not saying that isn't true, but I can also cite examples of diagnosed mentally ill people who have done similar (e.g-guy here in Seattle who killed several people in a coffee shop in May). Treatment for such people is simply not funded well enough as we tend to fund the problems that personally affect us. More people are 'willing to admit' that they, or their loved ones, have cancer, etc., than mental illness.

So, "What makes someone snap and do something like this?" I hope we get the answer for this particular case, and that the result is that we try to stop it from happening again, as opposed to our normal reactionary solutions;e.g-the brilliant city of NY posting police outside movie theaters.

[Matthew H]

It's not about gun control, it's about controlling the insane and sick minded

I'll start off by disclosing that I've never owned a gun, and I never will.

I'm going to agree with this statement. Many of these cases are undiagnosed schizophrenics. This illness typically is onset in a male around age 18. If this is true for this guy, that would mean he walked around for many years without anyone taking notice.

I deal with this on a daily basis, with a close family member. The treatments are terrible, there's no funding... I suppose it's not terminal so why should there be any, right?

I will also share that the time between onset and diagnosis of my family member was the most frightening time of my life. He couldn't tell the difference between the tv, radio, what I was saying or what was coming from the dog. The doctors later told us that the frontal lobe of his brain no longer functions correctly. Now we deal with him on a daily basis, on medication that only works sometimes. Constantly living in worry that he'll stop taking the medication and we'll have to start over... Which happens at least once a year. I can really, from expereance, imagine how this guy really thought he was in a movie. It's a damn shame. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families...

Matt

[nolemmings]

How about after they get elected? How about if you're serving your second and last term and can't get elected any more?

Barry, you've let the cat out of the bag. Here is an article written by LaPierre himself on the NRA website-- the title pretty much says it all: "Obama's Secret Plan to Destroy the Second Amendment by 2016."
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11920/obamas-secret-plan-to-destroy-the-second-amendment-by-2016/

He thinks that Obama has not taken on gun control measures his first term simply because he is lying in the weeds for a second term where he will be unconstrained to just eliminate people's right to bear arms altogether. Yep you heard me right, he actually thinks and preaches this.

I respect gun owners individually but have nothing but disdain for the NRA, in large part because it is led by a paranoiac. Any group which allows itself to be led by such deluded, fear-mongering zealots will get no sympathy or support from me--loathing, maybe, but no sympathy or support.

[2dueces]

My thoughts are with the families.

On the other subject, someone that is mentally unstable could use a 4000 lb projectile and run it through the middle of a parade. Sick people will never stop coming up with ways to do sick things. Hugs your kids a little tighter tonight.

[SetBuilder]

Here's the problem with gun control in this case: the shooter probably looked very sane to an objective observer. He was a Ph.D student and probably looked like a good guy. Unless we invent mind reading devices or administer psych exams to gun purchasers, I'm not sure how "gun control" is going to help things.

And don't say "ban guns altogether", that's never going to happen.

[nolemmings]

I agree that in this situation gun control may have limited relevance or impact, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. I also agree that the topic of mental illness should take on renewed discussion and importance, although many of the same people who say our abilities to diagnose and treat mental illness need to improve will also refuse to pay one red cent to fund programs for such purposes (unless maybe if we also grant additional tax breaks for the mythical job creators).

[Matthew H]

I agree that in this situation gun control may have limited relevance or impact, although that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it. I also agree that the topic of mental illness should take on renewed discussion and importance, although many of the same people who say our abilities to diagnose and treat mental illness need to improve will also refuse to pay one red cent to fund programs for such purposes (unless of course we also grant additional tax breaks for the mythical job creators).

I agree, I just don't understand how there can be so much funding, charity, awareness, etc. for something like an STD yet there is generally no common knowledge or awareness among the American people on the subject of mental illness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's the problem with gun control in this case: the shooter probably looked very sane to an objective observer. He was a Ph.D student and probably looked like a good guy. Unless we invent mind reading devices or administer psych exams to gun purchasers, I'm not sure how "gun control" is going to help things.

And don't say "ban guns altogether", that's never going to happen.

And the gun shop owner therefore concluded he was buying an assault rifle for a legitimate purpose?

[Matthew H]

Here's the problem with gun control in this case: the shooter probably looked very sane to an objective observer. He was a Ph.D student and probably looked like a good guy. Unless we invent mind reading devices or administer psych exams to gun purchasers, I'm not sure how "gun control" is going to help things.

And don't say "ban guns altogether", that's never going to happen.

I seriously doubt that the guy buying assault rifles for the purpose to commit mass murder looked perfectly sane. At least not to someone who knows what to look for...

[vintagetoppsguy]

And the gun shop owner therefore concluded he was buying an assault rifle for a legitimate purpose?

And the gun shop owner therefore concluded he was buying an assault rifle for a legitimate purpose?

I'm not sure why there is so much emphasis on the assault rifle. Take that out of the equation for just a minute. He still had 3 other guns with him - 2 Glock .40s and a Remington 870 Pump shotgun.

I, too, own a Glock similiar to the one he used, except mine is 9mm. The gun came with 2 clips, I purchased 2 additional clips. Each clip holds 10 rounds. I can discharge all 4 clips (40 rounds) in about a minute. It takes literally 2 seconds to drop the empty clip and replace it with a full clip.

My point is this. He didn't need the assault weapon to carry out the carnage that he did. Heck, he didn't even need the shotgun or the other Glock. He could have done as much damage with just one Glock as he did with all 4 guns.

Let's say for a minute that assualt weapons were illegal to purchase and he couldn't have purchased one. Do you really think that would have stopped him from doing this? Do you really think he couldn't have done the same amount of damage with 1 handgun and multiple loaded clips?

Let's quit focusing on the way he did it and focus on why he did it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps his interest in buying an assault weapon might have clued someone in that something was not right. But let's not impinge on individual freedom, this is the US of A.

[SetBuilder]

I seriously doubt that the guy buying assault rifles for the purpose to commit mass murder looked perfectly sane. At least not to someone who knows what to look for...

The 2nd ammendment doesn't allow you to judge the mental capacity of someone purchasing a rifle that meets all of the consitutional background check requirements to bear arms (no felonies, etc). Gun dealers aren't psychologists.

AR-15 and AK-47 rifles are sometimes used to hunt game. Why? Because there are plenty of military enthusiasts out there who enjoy firing the military style rifles. Just like baseball cards have historical appeal, the AK-47 rifle has a long documented history and there is a segment of the population who enjoys this sort of thing.

Now if you're advocating the ban of all military style rifles to anyone except police and military personnel, then I suppose it would have been much harder (or impossible) for the madman to purchase a weapon of this caliber. Right now that hasn't happened.

[zljones]

He obtained the guns legally through the system. He had no criminal background or anything else that would have prevented him from purchasing them. I know that doesn't make it any easier, but given the laws what could have been done differently to keep those guns out of his hands?

What is your definition of gun control? It sounds like gun control means something different to you than it does to me. My version of gun control is to have the proper checks in place to make sure people with criminal backgrounds and/or are mentally unstable are not allowed to purchase guns and/or ammo. It sounds like your version of control is to take away all guns. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth and if I'm wrong then so be it. However, if that is the case, then please explain what gun control means to you.

The City of Chicago has gun control - some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Yet their murder rate (by handgun) is among the highest in the nation. Bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on guns.

Maybe you're looking for answers. We all are. What makes someone snap and do something like this? Who knows? But this shouldn't be politicizd. Not now. ABC News tried to do it and it already backfired on them. I'll end with this. I pray for the victims and their families for strength and comfort in this time of tragedy.

Well said, well said. I live about 25 miles outside Chicago, and my brother lives in a rough section of the Southside. When I visit him I hear gun shots going off in the distance all night long in the Bridgeport neighborhood and Mckinnley Park. And this is the city and the state that is toughest on gun laws. Chicago Police are apathetic and often mean. My brother tried to report an attempted homicide and it took them 4 hours to get there and they didn't do anything, didn't even clean up the blood trail. The stain is actually still there 2 months later. This is the city that is toughest on gun laws; however, the murder rate is through the roof. I get sick of hearing about all these murders in Chicago. In the city where gun control is the toughest, has one of the most homicides in the nation. Police do not protect the citizens in this city too, instead residents fear the Police.
Your other comments are correct too about him being able to do the same damage with his other weapons, especially a Glock functions as a semiautomatic, and 40 caliber bullets can do alot of damage.
The main issue with all these shooters lately, is that they all want attention. They love to get media attention because they are little weiner dork boy losers that nobody likes to begin with. The media definatley gives them tons of attention when they slaughter people senslessly. Then some time later another lame little dork will do another shooting to get his fame as well.
People are now afraid to see Batman or even go to the theater. This shows fear, Americans need to stand up to this kind of crap and not let it effect their daily lives. These "shooters" are not Americans, they are terrorists and I for one do not give in to terrorism, I am thinking about buying a movie ticket for Batman this weekend.
I think there needs to be less media coverage when these things happen so the little weiner shooters do not get their fame. Plus I think it would be best for the families of the victims to mourn in peace without heavy media involvement.

[barrysloate]

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

[HRBAKER]

That's all fine Peter, but why doesn't anyone in a position of power have the balls to challenge them?

Because sadly most of the people in power are focused on one thing, staying in power. I have become convinced that those on both sides believe in one thing, whatever it takes to be elected. The age of the statesman and civil servant has passed.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Barry, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong. When one purchases a gun (any kind) in the USA from a licensed dealer, they must fill out a form from the ATF (Form 4473) and undergo a background check. The shooter in this case purchased his guns legally and did undergo a background check.

[zljones]

Whatever spin you want to put on this, the bottom line is it is very easy for someone to buy a gun in this country. And 99% of the people who do buy them are responsible and would never use them against another person unless they were in a life and death situation. But there is a tiny percentage of gun buyers who are unstable and shouldn't be allowed to buy them. In the case of Mr. Holmes, I don't think there were any red flags, as there was nothing in his past that suggested he was insane. But in the case of someone like Jared Loughner, who committed the murders in Arizona, there were any number of red flags. And yet nothing stopped him from buying his weapons.

Somewhere along the line some of these guys could be stopped in their tracks by a simple background check. Not saying all can, but even if one or two could be caught it would save countless lives. But when this idea is brought up the NRA goes ballistic (pun intended) and nothing ever really changes.

Nobody is hurt by making it just a little more difficult for citizens to purchase guns. If you have a clean record it shouldn't matter in the least, maybe no more than filling out some paperwork. But if just one idiot is stopped because of a background check, some lives can be saved. These are small concessions but the NRA makes no concessions whatsoever. It's their extreme approach to this issue that gets a lot of people riled. There is always a middle ground that can be achieved with a little effort.

I also agree here. There does need to be more background checks. The problem with Chicago is since it is such a greedy city, they charge citizens tons of money to own a gun and make them pay tons of fees, take courses that cost hundreds. The regular citizen can't afford the cost of the weapon and headache of getting certified and fees associated.
But cheap, and careful registration should be a must. I do agree with you there. And I am also glad no one ever talks about that Jerrod kid in the media anymore, he does not deserve any more attention. I almost forgot his name til you mentioned it LOL.

[barrysloate]

David- the shooter in this case had a clean record. What is so mystifying at this stage is that Holmes was a solid citizen who was working towards a PhD in neuroscience and showed virtually no antisocial tendencies at all. People who knew him had nothing bad to say about him except that he was quiet and a little standoffish. Hey, that's a pretty good description of me too.

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up? Because that guy makes Charles Manson look like a solid citizen. He was an absolute psychopath. Exactly what does this form 4473 check out in a person's past?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Exactly what does this form 4473 check out in a person's past?

The Form itself asks for basic information about yourself. Then you answer a series of yes or no questions. Then the dealer calls it in to the ATF where a background check is ran. I do not know how extensive the bacground check is. This is the first page. Then you sign and date the back page. I believe the other 2 pages are instructions on how to fill it out.

Edited to add: Although gun laws are different from state the state, this form still has to be completed by anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer in the USA.

http://cdn.stripersonline.com/8/82/82f4a0ac_vbattach426370.jpg

[vintagetoppsguy]

But what about someone like Loughner? Are you telling me that he was properly vetted and nothing came up?

Unfortunately, yes. Loughner also purchased his gun legally as well. Filled out the same form, went through the same background check.

I believe he used a single Glock 9mm and killed 6 people. That's what I meant earlier by saying that Holmes could have done the same thing even without the assault rifle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

That's a useful form. I am sure people purchasing guns with bad intent are careful to be truthful.

[vintagetoppsguy]

That's a useful form. I am sure people purchasing guns with bad intent are careful to be truthful.

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess it's easier to complain than offer solutions. How do you think it could be improved?

Here's some of my ideas:
Ban assault rifles
Ban high capacity clips
Waiting period
Serial numbers on ammunition that could be traced back to the purchaser

Also, forgot to mention there is a place on the back of the form that describes the gun(s) you are purchasing - brand, model, caliber, action, serial number, etc.

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

[bmarlowe1]

The contemporary debate over what the second amendment really means notwithstanding (the latest interpretation with respect to private ownership unrelated to a "militia" being the result of a 5-4 SC decision that could very well change at some point), I have always wondered what the drafters would think it should mean now that firearms are no longer muzzle-loaded with a rate of fire of 1-3 shots per minute. Guns now are so relatively inexpensive (compared to 18thC cost) and produce a rate a fire (even if they are only semi-automatic) far beyond what those 18thC men ever envisioned.

As to the comments about the ineffectiveness of Chicago gun laws, of course they are ineffective - there aren't border guards at every entry point into the city. Any gun laws, if they are to be effective (and I admit that is a big "if") have to be national.

[Wite3]

I am a so sorry for those who were harmed in Colorado...

Joshua

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

How there is an unfettered right to own guns, unconnected to a militia that is now obsolete, eludes me.

[barrysloate]

Thanks David for posting that form. Bottom line is if somebody like Loughner can buy guns legally then we have to accept the fact that these crimes are not preventable. I guess it's not a matter of if, but when and where the next massacre will occur. And I don't have a solution either.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David, I agree with all those suggestions, I think those would be helpful. Although I don't know the facts here, I am also guessing background checks probably could be more rigorous than they are. I know the counterargument is that anyone who wants to kill someone will find a way to do it, but in America that seems to happen, with guns mostly purchased lawfully, with alarming frequency. It is at least worth the experiment to see if tightening the process helps.

Peter, it's just a sad, senseless tragedy. But people try to make it into a gun issue and in my opinion it's not. It's a mental sickness that makes someone want to kill another person out of cold blood and they'll find any means to do it.

I don't know the numbers, but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol? I really don't drink, I could care less. Maybe it's worth the experiment to see if it reduces the number of alcohol related fatalities.

I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle, we blame the person for not having the responsibility to control themselves. The situation in Auroroa should be no different. Let's quit focusing on how he did and and focus on why he did it and maybe we can prevent things like this from happening again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving would certainly agree with making it more difficult for people to drive drunk, as would I. I believe some states have enacted some fairly tough dram shop laws in an effort to make this more than an issue about personal responsibility.

[Runscott]

edited - wasted my keystrokes

[bmarlowe1]

but I bet more innocent people will be killed this weekend by drunk drivers than were killed in Aurora. So, do we ban alcohol?......I just don't understand that when a drunk driver kills someone, we don't blame the alcohol or the vehicle,

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David,
I find it difficult to equate vehicles with guns. Travel in vehicles is a necessity for many obvious reasons. It is hard to imagine modern civilization and economies without it (including private ownership of vehicles). Private ownership of weapons that produce a high rate of fire is not analogous to vehicle ownership.

As to DWI - there are very strict laws against it everywhere. The high number of deaths can be attributed to the fact that nearly everyone drives. In any case, banning alcohol did not work. As to whether much stricter gun laws would work, some countries surely do have them. It doesn't always prevent mass tragedies, but I would still consider that at least an open and very important relevant question.

My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope. Same thing could be said about tougher gun laws. The criminals will ignore the laws and find ways to get guns, just like people who choose to drink and drive ignore the DWI laws. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they're criminals.

Edited to add: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns? If so, you prove your point and I lose my argument. If not, then I just won my argument.

[drc]

I would imagine the strict drinking and driving laws does lower dui deaths. I suspect it lowers the number of people drinking and driving.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Vital statistics from the U.S. were compared to those from 22 other high-income countries with populations over 1 million people that reported causes of mortality to WHO for 2003. Researchers relied on The World Bank’s definition of a high income nation, which included countries that had a gross national income per capita of $12,276 or more for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011.

In addition to the U.S., the study included Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and United Kingdom (Scotland).

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Researchers determined that the rate of homicides with guns in the U.S. was 4.1 per 100,000 people; the same rate combining the 22 other countries was 0.2 per 100,000 in 2003. The rate of homicides using guns in the U.S. was 19.5 times the rate of the other countries.

Peter, let's be fair. What was the homicide rate as a whole (gun, knife, other weapon) for all countries compared to the United States?

In other words, are the homicide rates about the same from country to country? If so, that just shows that people are finding other ways to kill people.

I'll await your response.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. I will see if I can find any information.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.photius.com/rankings/murder_rate_of_countries_2000-2004.html

From lowest to highest, US ranks 78th out of 121, substantially higher rate than most Western European countries.

[Runscott]

edited - wasted my breath on this topic

[bmarlowe1]

David:My point is this. Yes, there are very strict laws against drinking and driving. Does that reduce the number of DWI fatalities? Nope.

Me: In fact, the DWI fatalities are very much down since the advent of stricter laws and much more serious enforcement. (you can find this both nationally and for individual states all over the web - this has been in decline for a long time)

David: Just a question. If Holmes instead would have driven his vehicle through the movie theater at a high rate of speed with the intent to cause as much death and destruction as possible and in the process killing 12 people, would we be talking about vehicles instead of guns?

Me: No, because modern civilization cannot continue without vehicles. I think it could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mark, civilization could not continue, because as someone pointed out earlier, there is a segment of the population that enjoy firing military-style weapons, and we couldn't possibly deprive them of that pleasure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How great is this, the Aurora guy bought 6000 rounds of ammunition online, and he had to go through the rigorous process of certifying that he was 18 or older, or perhaps 21 or older, depending on weapon.

To Purchase Ammunition Online:
Federal law requires that you must be at least 18 years old to purchase shotgun ammunition and 21 years or older to purchase handgun and rifle ammunition.

You do not need an FFL to purchase ammunition online.
We can ship ammunition to your door via UPS ground or air.
Ammunition may be shipped air with a hazardous material classification; otherwise it can only be shipped ground.
Ammunition shipments to Alaska and Hawaii must be by air.
Ammunition and firearms must be purchased separately.
For safety reasons, we do not accept returns on ammunition.
Always make sure you use the correct ammunition for your specific firearm.
Check your local laws for any other regulations before ordering.

[SetBuilder]

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?


Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
Training and certification requirement.
Longer waiting period.
Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.


I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem. :D

[Runscott]

edited - wasting my breath

[powderfinger]

Quite a few different issues here, and all seemingly related: second amendment, NRA, right to bear arms, etc. I'd just like to add another wrinkle to the thread.

I live in Wisconsin, and the elections last year put conservatives in the governor's mansion, and majorities in both state houses. One of the first things they did was enact an "open carry" law for the state. While there is a training session for those who want to take advantage of open carry, you have to show up with your gun to take it, which means you bought it legally through methods already described in this thread. Once you pass the training, you can legally carry your weapon in public. Most proponents of the bill insist it was passed in order to provide citizens with the right to protect themselves from gun-toting bad guys.

Can you imagine what might have happened if, say, a half-dozen other people in that full theater who were legally. openly carrying handguns that night decided to open fire in the direction of the shooter to defend themselves and others from the bad guy?

Open carry is now legal in almost all 50 states. Wisconsin was one of the last hold-outs, but the NRA spent a lot of cash in Madison (our capital city) and sadly, got its way.

So many layers to this problem we could debate it forever, but reading the comments here one gets a pretty clear understanding as to why they never get solved. Physical or emotional, turf is turf, and we all fight to the finish to defend our own.

[novakjr]

First, I'd like express my deepest sympathies for those in Aurora, Colorado.

Now, as far as gun laws. C'mon. The people responsible for these acts aren't gonna be stopped because of harsher gun laws. Criminals and Psychopaths are known for "Breaking the law". Even if guns were outlawed, incidents like these aren't going to stop. If anything, it would only force them to change their methods. Maybe we should outlaw forks for making people fat.(no offense intended towards people of the larger variety)..

And while I agree that certain items should require a psychological examination, overall, I think the gun laws are fine. BUT certain purchases should be a perfect "tip off" as to when things like this could occur, and probably should require a bit of monitoring afterwards. Rather than a simple, "here ya go, enjoy your WMD's, and thank you for your business."

[Frank A]

There are billions of guns (weapons) in the USA. There is no possible way that any gun restrictions in this country could ever work. I own guns and would never give them up. I carry all the time unless I am going into a building or state where it is not legal. I have never seen a theater that allowed guns. The people there had no chance at all. Thank god this guy was an awful shot. With the amount of ammo this guy used it could have been much much worse. They call the AR15 he had an asault rifle. Only because of the size of the clip. It was a Semi-Automatic rifle. In no way the same as our military use. There have been semi auto rifles made for the last 100 years buy many makers. Nothing new here. He bought the ammo on line. No big deal. He could have bought it in any store. I know many people hate guns and that is their right, but most gun owners have respect for them. I hate to see these things happen, but there are a lot of nut cases out there and you never know when one will pop up. The bigger problem here is that this guy will spend years of time draging this through the court system when they should just take him out to the nearest tree and HANG him in publick. Frank

[steve B]

After looking into the matter further, I do agree that gun control is very lax. There should be a lot more hoops to jump through before being able to purchase a powerful rifle for whatever recreational purpose it may serve.

Could ideas such as this be implemented?


Mandatory psychological exam and waiver.
Training and certification requirement.
Longer waiting period.
Requiring a license to own a military style rifle and make that license REALLY expensive.
Make guns in general more expensive by taxing them.


I like the making guns more expensive to own idea because the Colorado shooter wouldn't have been able to afford a hypothetical $10,000 "assault rifle license fee." Perhaps take it a step further and issue the licenses like liquor licenses. Only a certain quota allowed per 100,000 citizens. That, plus long waiting lists should deter a mass murderer.

There I solved the problem. :D

That's about the process to legally own an actual "assault weapon" - IE, an actual AK47 or M16 capable of fully automatic fire. Those have been very tightly regulated since 1938. Last I checked there had been 0 crimes comitted with legally held machine guns since then. Very stringent background check, $500 tax to transfer(Maybe $1000? haven't checked in a while) on top of the price and sales tax. Very difficult license to get. And I think the background check is redone for renewal.

One of the problems with attempting to regulate what are currently called assault weapons is that they are functionally no different from many if not most hunting rifles. The only difference is cosmetics -they're built to look like the military guns.
Banning them by function means banning every semi automatic gun, which includes a vast array of legitimate rifles for hunting and target use as well as many shotguns used for legitimate sports like trap shooting. And while that might seem reasonable in urban areas it's totally unreasonable in rural areas where some people actually do hunt for food rather than for sport.

-------------
I don't own a gun, having ADD means I'd be the guy leaving it out on the coffe table, NOT the way to properly care for it or the people around you.
But I have done very occasional sport shooting.
I'm in favor of a higher bar to initial ownership, but less restriction as you prove yourself. Maybe bolt action for 5-10 years then semi auto. Some graduated system like with a drivers license. (But we have that here in Mass for pistol permits, and uneven application makes it a problem.)

I like the idea of easily traceable ammunition. It should be a trivial thing to number the cartridges during manufacture. There would be complications for a few circumstances like people who reload their own shells, and clubs that buy in bulk for events.


California bans them, initially by a list of models, then by a list of models and adding language about "or similar to" or something like that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Interesting articles on guns and politics.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/gun-politics/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/world/americas/analysis-colorado-shooting-mann/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/obama-gun-debate/index.html

[barrysloate]

The articles are depressing...but the comments in response are a hoot. Not a lot of tolerance for people who don't agree with the person posting. It's pretty much, If you disagree with me you're a f***ing idiot.

[SetBuilder]

It's getting to the point I don't even read entire articles anymore, I just go straight to the comments section.

BTW, Should this thread be moved to the Watercooler section?

[barrysloate]

This thread shouldn't even be, and I apologize if any of my posts overstepped our "no politics" rule. If Leon wants to lock it that's fine.

[Leon]

It's getting to the point I don't even read entire articles anymore, I just go straight to the comments section.

BTW, Should this thread be moved to the Watercooler section?

Judgement call and no, imo. Major US and world events are fair game off topics. This thread started out as remembrance and prayers for people that lost their lives then devolved into the gun debate. At this late stage I don't think moving it is the best thing. "Everything in moderation."

[Runscott]

The articles are depressing...but the comments in response are a hoot. Not a lot of tolerance for people who don't agree with the person posting. It's pretty much, If you disagree with me you're a f***ing idiot.

i.e- "the internet"

[vintagetoppsguy]

I think most gun owners would agree that there should be stricter laws regarding gun control. There have been plenty of good suggestions made in this thread, I even mentioned a few. One more idea that I haven't seen mentioned (or overlooked it if it was) is mandatory drug testing for gun owners, testing for illegal and certain over-the-counter medications.

[barrysloate]

Did anybody see the perpetrator in his first courtroom appearance today? He looked like he was nodding out on narcotics. He barely seemed to know where he was.

[Vintageismygame]

I think most gun owners would agree that there should be stricter laws regarding gun control. There have been plenty of good suggestions made in this thread, I even mentioned a few. One more idea that I haven't seen mentioned (or overlooked it if it was) is mandatory drug testing for gun owners, testing for illegal and certain over-the-counter medications.

Why would we drug test for gun purchases? We do not even do that for food stamps? If a massive gun control measure is passed and tried to be implemented there will be bloodshed on levels we have only read about.

You (meant in general) want to come take away my ability to protect my family? Well I will fight to my death to keep that ability. So you better be ready to meet your maker because I have no problem introducing you to him.

[glynparson]

I do have a problem with certain clip/magazine/drum sizes as well as certain types of available ammunition. I am far from wanting to take away the right to own a gun but that doesn't mean I feel it should have any type of capacity or its projectile should be enhanced with armor piercing or chemicals, etc. That is why Idont join the NRA they fight for the extreme in my beliefs and rational gun control/ gun laws are not a bad thing and neither is discussing it contrary to what a political action committee would have you think.

[Matthew H]

Why would we drug test for gun purchases? We do not even do that for food stamps? .

Well said man, well said.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Why would we drug test for gun purchases? We do not even do that for food stamps?

At my company, I had to pass a drug test as a condition for employment and I'm subject to random drug tests at any given time. In my opinion, anyone on food stamps (or any government assistance) should be subject to the same. But that's a whole other topic.

[tiger8mush]

The bigger problem here is that this guy will spend years of time draging this through the court system when they should just take him out to the nearest tree and HANG him in publick.

agreed. The bastard doesn't deserve to breathe another breath of fresh air considering what he's done.

may the Colorado victims RIP.

I don't own a gun, but I don't blame this on the gun. I blame this on the shooter. Like a previous poster said, the shooter could've done this with a single 9mm Glock and 4 loaded clips. Hell he could've had a samurai sword and started hacking people up like he was swiping at vines in a jungle.

[bunst]

they should just take him out to the nearest tree and HANG him in publick. Frank

Hanging would be too quick and easy. This is a prime example of when "cruel and unusual punishment" should be used.

[barrysloate]

I think they should put him in a room with the victims' families, and let the families mete out the just punishment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think they should put him in a room with the victims' families, and let the families mete out the just punishment.

And where do you draw the line between where you would let frontier justice prevail and where you would give defendants due process?

[barrysloate]

That wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's what I would like to see, not what in any way I would expect to happen.

[kcohen]

I could never understand why Chris Rock's proposal never received more serious consideration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

[Peter_Spaeth]

That wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's what I would like to see, not what in any way I would expect to happen.

Right, that's how I understood you, but in your ideal world where would you draw the line?

[yanks12025]

Anyone see the car crash that killed 14 people in texas. Guess trucks should be banned next.

[barrysloate]

In my ideal world there would be a short line. I don't think there's any doubt this guy did it. Among the questions would be why he did it. As long as I'm sure it's him...I don't have too much sympathy for a crime that horrific.

[barrysloate]

Anyone see the car crash that killed 14 people in texas. Guess trucks should be banned next.

Come on Brock, that's not the same thing and you know it. Why would you say something like that? If I slip on a banana peel and break my neck, do you think we should ban bananas? Do you think what happened in Aurora was just an unfortunate accident? Let's stay focused.

[pariah1107]

This is a horrible tragedy. I am not for vigilante justice, but Colorado has only executed one person since 1976 (Method of execution in Colorado is lethal injection). In comparison, Texas has executed 483 since 1976. Truly hope the bereaved families of those killed or wounded in this senseless act find some measure of justice, but I have my doubts.

I agree with above posts, definitely looked as though the accused was doing the Thorazine shuffle in his court appearance this AM. Probably already laying the groundwork for an insanity defense.

I feel no sympathy for this man.

[bmarlowe1]

Anyone see the car crash that killed 14 people in texas. Guess trucks should be banned next.

That analogy (and a few that were similar earlier in this thread) just doesn't seem like a rational statement to me, even if the truck deaths were intentional and not accidental. If all motorized vehicles disappeared, our civilization and economy would fall apart. If all high capacity firearms in private hands disappeared, I think we would do just fine.

[vintagetoppsguy]

That analogy (and a few that were similar earlier in this thread) just doesn't seem like a rational statement to me, even if the truck deaths were intentional and not accidental. If all motorized vehicles disappeared, our civilization and economy would fall apart. If all high capacity firearms in private hands disappeared, I think we would do just fine.

His point was, when people want to kill other people, they'll find a way no matter what. They can use box cutters and air planes (9/11), ammonium nitrate and nitromethane (Timothy McVeigh - Oklahoma City bombing), cyanide-laced Kool Aid (Jim Jones), etc, etc, etc. I could give many examples of mass murder that was carried out by ways other than a gun. What are we going to do, ban anything that has ever been used as a means to kill people? Come on.

Edited to add: So, once again, let's quit focusing on how the nut jobs are killing people and focus on why the nut jobs are killing people. Maybe then we can stop it.

[bmarlowe1]

David - have you tried bringing box cutters on a plane lately (or tried bying a very large quantity of ammonium nitrate)? In contrast to what you have said, since those disasters the "methods" used have been an objective of regulation and substantially increased governmental scrutiny. While not foolproof, clearly some degree of success has been achieved.

Keep in mind that Jim Jones enforced his mass poisoning with automatic firearms.

[yanks12025]

If you want to hear other bad news, just this past week by where I live, a 16 and 15 year old are being charged with murdering two other kids that were 16 and 13. Right now they believe it to be over money and drugs and they think that the 15 year old was the trigger man.

[vintagetoppsguy]

David - have you tried bringing box cutters on a plane lately (or tried bying a very large quantity of ammonium nitrate). In contrast to what you have said, since those disasters the "methods" used have been an objective of regulation and substantially increased governmental scrutiny. While not foolproof, clearly some degree of success has been achieved.

Ummm, underwear bomber? Shoe bomber? Fortunately these two idiots were stopped. My point is that the nut jobs will always find a way to kill people in masses. But you fail to understand my point. And, as long as you (and others) do, more senseless tragedies will occur because you want to focus on the how and not the why. You can have the last word. I'm done.

[Runscott]

I agree with above posts, definitely looked as though the accused was doing the Thorazine shuffle in his court appearance this AM. Probably already laying the groundwork for an insanity defense.

I feel no sympathy for this man.

The Thorazine shuffle? Do you even know what Thorazine is for? It's used to treat Schizophrenia, which is a mental illness. If this man was in the middle of his first manic break as a schizophrenic, then he's mentally ill and was not acting with his own mind. First mental breaks normally occur for schizophrenic men in their 20's, and they are generally exceptionally intelligent and creative people, and the illness manifests itself as anger. Prior to the attack, there might have been some eccentric behavior, but no family wants to think their son is mentally ill, so it gets ignored. When the person comes down from the break (which might not even happen with a schizophrenic), they are generally horrified at what they have done.

Basically, if he's mentally ill, executing him is not going to give the family members any sense of justice. It will only give internet forum members a sense of justice.

But you're not alone - the only time an American generally has any desire to discuss mental illness is when something like this happens, and their solution is generally the same being suggested on this board - lethal injection. Any manifestation of mental illness that is less than horrible, is ignored, which is why Seattle and other cities have so many mentally ill people living on the streets.

But of course, he could simply be a sane, evil person who somehow managed to hide his murderous tendencies for his entire life. I'm sure it's possible.

[Leon]

This was premeditated for months and months. That is not an episode. Otherwise I tend to agree.



The Thorazine shuffle? Do you even know what Thorazine is for? It's used to treat Schizophrenia, which is a mental illness. If this man was in the middle of his first manic break as a schizophrenic, then he's mentally ill and was not acting with his own mind. First mental breaks normally occur for schizophrenic men in their 20's, and they are generally exceptionally intelligent and creative people, and the illness manifests itself as anger. Prior to the attack, there might have been some eccentric behavior, but no family wants to think their son is mentally ill, so it gets ignored. When the person comes down from the break (which might not even happen with a schizophrenic), they are generally horrified at what they have done.

Basically, if he's mentally ill, executing him is not going to give the family members any sense of justice. It will only give internet forum members a sense of justice.

But you're not alone - the only time an American generally has any desire to discuss mental illness is when something like this happens, and their solution is generally the same being suggested on this board - lethal injection. Any manifestation of mental illness that is less than horrible, is ignored, which is why Seattle and other cities have so many mentally ill people living on the streets.

But of course, he could simply be a sane, evil person who somehow managed to hide his murderous tendencies for his entire life. I'm sure it's possible.

[bmarlowe1]

Ummm, underwear bomber? Shoe bomber? Fortunately these two idiots were stopped. My point is that the nut jobs will always find a way to kill people in masses. But you fail to understand my point. And, as long as you (and others) do, more senseless tragedies will occur because you want to focus on the how and not the why. You can have the last word. I'm done.

As to the underwear & shoe bombers, I said, "While not foolproof, clearly some degree of success has been achieved." I think that is right.

I understand your point - you are saying that because targeting methods is not perfect, it should not be done, and we should only target "why" (as if that would produce better results). I don't think that is logical. I did not say targeting methods was perfect, I said it can be effective. Shoe bomber and underwear bomber notwithstanding, targeting methods clearly has been very effective with respect to the examples you presented.

[Runscott]

This was premeditated for months and months. That is not an episode. Otherwise I tend to agree.

The reference to an antipsychotic for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder was what got my reaction. Like everyone else here, I obviously don't know what caused this man to do what he did.

But, yes - an 'episode' can actually last for 6 months or even a year, during which time the person's brain is quite different - his mental functions may actually get better in a lot of ways (more creative, artistic, quicker thinking, etc); however, there should have been some hints that he was having a problem.

Edited to add: Any time someone murders, people want justice. You can't get justice by executing someone who is insane, which is why people want insanity please to be bogus. But what if the person really is insane? Do you execute anyone who commits murder, whether they did it while in their right mind or not? I would argue that someone who accidentally runs his car into a crowd of people and kills 11 people is acting while in their right mind, while an insane person who plans the murder of 11 people is not. A person who was drunk and kills 11 people 'by accident' was acting in their right mind when they began drinking while their car keys were in their pocket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ummm, underwear bomber? Shoe bomber? Fortunately these two idiots were stopped. My point is that the nut jobs will always find a way to kill people in masses. But you fail to understand my point. And, as long as you (and others) do, more senseless tragedies will occur because you want to focus on the how and not the why. You can have the last word. I'm done.

David, it seems to me even more quixotic to try to eradicate all mental illness (or, if he's sane, to eradicate all the horrible life experiences that lead people to break with society) than to control guns. I agree with the goal, but it seems unachievable. Suppose we learn that he was an abuse victim. What do we do with that knowledge?

[Runscott]

David, it seems to me even more quixotic to try to eradicate all mental illness (or, if he's sane, to eradicate all the horrible life experiences that lead people to break with society) than to control guns. I agree with the goal, but it seems unachievable. Suppose we learn that he was an abuse victim. What do we do with that knowledge?

I think you have to work both ends. Based on the facts available at this point, it seems there were no hints that this guy had any problems, which means that anything less than testing everyone for 'mental illness' genes would not have stopped him from doing 'something' evil. But on the other hand, some amount of gun control could have prevented the lethality of what he did. True, you can't stop people from committing horrific acts, but you can at least take the grenades and assault weapons out of the equation.

David is right that as a society, we tend to focus on the 'how' (symptoms) rather than the 'why' (problems). NYC reacting to children bringing guns to school by putting in metal detectors is an example that comes to mind. The problem is most likely lack of parental guidance at home, not gun control. You can't keep people from living their lives, which is what some are proposing by asking "how can we make movie theaters safer?" Fix the problem and you won't have to fix as many symptoms.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, how, short of a totaletarian state, do we force parents to be more attentive, or to make sure everyone with mental illness is appropriately treated (or confined if necessary), etc.? Sometimes all you can fix is the symptom.

[Matthew H]

The Thorazine shuffle? Do you even know what Thorazine is for? It's used to treat Schizophrenia, which is a mental illness. If this man was in the middle of his first manic break as a schizophrenic, then he's mentally ill and was not acting with his own mind. First mental breaks normally occur for schizophrenic men in their 20's, and they are generally exceptionally intelligent and creative people, and the illness manifests itself as anger. Prior to the attack, there might have been some eccentric behavior, but no family wants to think their son is mentally ill, so it gets ignored. When the person comes down from the break (which might not even happen with a schizophrenic), they are generally horrified at what they have done.

Basically, if he's mentally ill, executing him is not going to give the family members any sense of justice. It will only give internet forum members a sense of justice.

But you're not alone - the only time an American generally has any desire to discuss mental illness is when something like this happens, and their solution is generally the same being suggested on this board - lethal injection. Any manifestation of mental illness that is less than horrible, is ignored, which is why Seattle and other cities have so many mentally ill people living on the streets.

But of course, he could simply be a sane, evil person who somehow managed to hide his murderous tendencies for his entire life. I'm sure it's possible.

+1 Very well said...

Yes, an episode can last 6 months.... Actually much much longer if no one cares to notice. Just ask the homeless man talking to the telephone pole. I am very close to someone who suffers from schitzophrenia. People who fake being sick to cover for a crime are the worst. Definetly not great spokesmen for those wih real problems.

If he's sick, he's in for a rude awakening.

Also, it's a damn shame the only medication available for mental illness basically turns people into zombies.

[Runscott]

Scott, how, short of a totaletarian state, do we force parents to be more attentive, or to make sure everyone with mental illness is appropriately treated (or confined if necessary), etc.? Sometimes all you can fix is the symptom.

You provide more beds in psychiatric facilities, and more psychiatrists - the mentally ill are frequently kicked out of such facilities during their initial 72-hour observation period, simply because of lack of funding. Additionally, because of HIPPA laws, the patient often makes the decision to hit the streets, despite not being in their right mind. Because of the same laws, patients can ONLY be given antipsychotics while in the hospital, despite the fact that they actually need mood suppressors. They get just enough medication to appear 'sort of' sane when they go before a judge, are then released, then slip back into their mania. Lack of education about mental illness allows this, and that's partially because of lack of funding. Courts are so worried about getting sued for violating civil rights, that if there is any chance that someone is sane, they are released.

You educate. Most of you have no idea that what I wrote in the previous paragraph is even true - few will support, or get educated about, anything that doesn't directly affect them. The jails frequently release inmates from the psychiatric areas of their jails, simply because they lack space and the knowledge that the people they are releasing are on the verge of a psychotic episode (or are actually in one). The jailers are ignorant of their 'patients', and the psychiatrists who supposedly visit the inmates in the psychiatric area, seldom ever show up.

In each of the above examples, mentally ill people are released onto the streets AFTER their families have sought treatment, and then commit crimes (or murders), at which time you can fix the symptom by punishing these people for being mentally ill, rather than treating them.

[Runscott]

Also, it's a damn shame the only medication available for mental illness basically turns people into zombies.

That's not actually the case. I can promise you, if this guy is in the middle of a schizophrenic or bipolar episode, there is no way he is going to take anything other than an antipsychotic, which can be legally injected into him and yes, may give him a zombie-like appearance. That's because such people do NOT think there is anything wrong with themselves - the part of the brain that is affected by the illness is also the part that gives insight, meaning that they are incapable of knowing that they are ill. With schizophrenics, getting them to take medication is an ongoing problem, as they never get insight. But there are medications that allow some of these people to function fine - sometimes with no side effects, and actually better than before their break.

I apologize if my posts have insulted anyone's intelligence, but I have met more schizophrenics and others with bipolar disorder, than I ever could have imagined, and the stories that their loved ones tell are heart-wrenching. I know that the family of the Cafe murderer here in Seattle, had been trying to get him help for a long time, but he refused it and was 'protected' from his family's and acquaintances' help by the HIPPA laws. The outcome was murder of several innocent people.

But again, the Colorado guy might be a different situation. I'm sure we'll find out at some point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, you obviously know and have thought a lot about all this, but I am uncomfortable on many levels with the notion of courts making more decisions to force people to take medications. I can imagine all sorts of situations where that would happen inappropriately, although I admit it's a trade off between type 1 and type 2 errors.

[Runscott]

Scott, you obviously know and have thought a lot about all this, but I am uncomfortable on many levels with the notion of courts making more decisions to force people to take medications. I can imagine all sorts of situations where that would happen inappropriately, although I admit it's a trade off between type 1 and type 2 errors.

Peter, it's a very difficult situation. I could give you many examples where the court has been very compassionate with the mentally ill, and I know helped them. Other situations have not been so great. It's a trade-off between protecting civil rights and protecting the person from themselves, and protecting society from them. In Washington State, we have gone overboard with protecting civil rights, and the people who are put in charge of the mentally ill (in hospitals, jails, courts) are sadly ignorant and underfunded.

Regarding medications, the hospitals here in Washington have proven to be so ignorant at diagnosing mental illnesses, and then at choosing the appropriate medications, that I would have to agree with you. They are allowed to give anti-psychotics only to keep a patient from physically harming others, not to actually help the patient come down from their mania. In other words, a manic or psychotic individual can have their civil rights taken away for 72 hours by a judge, but then is allowed to keep the civil rights which allow them to reject medication to help alleviate the reason that they were incarcerated against their will. So, they are crazy enough to be locked up, but sane enough to not be healed. If I thought the psychiatric facilities had knowledgeable psychiatrists on hand, then I would say "let them diagnose the person and start them on antipsychotics (if they are psychotic) and mood suppressors if they are manic." To me, that is logical. But I didn't write the HIPPA laws, and I'm not a hospital in fear of lawsuits that is overreacting to every little line in said laws.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The notion of relying on psychiatrists and judges to make correct decisions about people's medication status is frightening. And it isn't just schizophrenia. Do we force depressed people to take anti-depressants? Do we keep forcing kids to take ritalin and the like over their parents' objections? Where does Big Brother's reach stop?

[Matthew H]

But there are medications that allow some of these people to function fine - sometimes with no side effects, and actually better than before their break.

Could you please in form me of these miracle drugs? I've spent a solid chunk of the last 15 years researching every single possible alternative to Zyprexa to no avail. Some drugs, like Geodon, Have actually drastically made things much worse.

I've been to every Board and Care in southern California. Every single individual living in these places resemble a zombie to me. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually really hope you know something that I don't.

-Matt

[Runscott]

The notion of relying on psychiatrists and judges to make correct decisions about people's medication status is frightening. And it isn't just schizophrenia. Do we force depressed people to take anti-depressants? Do we keep forcing kids to take ritalin and the like over their parents' objections? Where does Big Brother's reach stop?

You are right. But given the HIPPA laws, the only person who is allowed to make the decision is the mentally ill person - the person who is not in their right mind and who is the least capable of making the decision.

[Leon]

You are right. But given the HIPPA laws, the only person who is allowed to make the decision is the mentally ill person - the person who is not in their right mind and who is the least capable of making the decision.

I have a cousin in law who passed away recently and he was a full blown schizophrenic. When anyone was around him, on his meds or not, they knew he was a bit off. I am sure there are different degrees of it but I wouldn't buy this shooter having it. If someone has schizophrenia, at least in my experiences, you know it. This guy was functioning in society fine and was not on medication. Sorry, in this case I am just not buying it (nor has that been a defense yet). I also think his demeanor in court today was a pre-plan for the start of an insanity plea. As I said on the phone yesterday, we really have to look at each individual situation. If I were the judge I would probably, if there were a way, let the victim's families decide his fate. (pipe dream, I know)

[Runscott]

Could you please in form me of these miracle drugs? I've spent a solid chunk of the last 15 years researching every single possible alternative to Zyprexa to no avail. Some drugs, like Geodon, Have actually drastically made things much worse.

I've been to every Board and Care in southern California. Every single individual living in these places resemble a zombie to me. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually really hope you know something that I don't.

-Matt

Mark, argumentative is okay :)

I'm guessing you know all of this, as my experience is limited, but what I said is more true for those with bipolar disorder, as many can eventually get off the antipsychotics, leaving them on mood suppressors such as lithium, that in many cases have few, if any, side effects.

Schizophrenia is much more difficult because antipsychotics are always necessary, and too often cause side effects. Also, what helps one patient may be ineffective for another, and there may be other conditions that have to be treated at the same time, requiring a 'cocktail' of drugs. Finding something that reduces symptoms AND has few side effects, can be a lifetime battle. Zyprexa (olanzapine), from what I've seen, is pretty horrible for a lot of patients - muscle rigidity, hand tremors, general dullness. Haldol can also have very bad side effects. I've seen risperidone used with no side effects at all, but the dosage was low - possibly too low for a schizophrenic patient. I've seen schizophrenic patients who showed few side effects (if any), but I didn't know their baseline personality, or what they were on.

If you want to stay in touch about this, PM me. I have good resources to ask questions of, and I'll ask about antipsychotics and their side effects.

[Runscott]

I have a cousin in law who passed away recently and he was a full blown schizophrenic. When anyone was around him, on his meds or not, they know he was a bit off. I am sure there are different degrees of it but I wouldn't buy this shooter having it. If someone has schizophrenia, at least in my experiences, you know it. This guy was functioning in society fine and was not on medication. Sorry, in this case I am just not buying it (nor has that been a defense yet). I also think his demeanor in court today was a pre-plan for the start of an insanity plea. As I said on the phone yesterday, we really have to look at each individual situation. If I were the judge I would probably, if there were a way, let the victim's families decide his fate. (pipe dream, I know)

I'll reserve an execution sentence until I know more facts, but I very much appreciate our talk the other day and I tend to agree that he probably isn't mentally ill, for the same reason you gave.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Legal systems have always struggled with the definition of insanity as a defense. Does it mean the inability to tell right from wrong? Or does it mean the inability to control one's actions? Or something else? I think for most people, including myself, it's hard to believe someone who for months carefully plans a crime is not "sane" by any definition. On the other hand, if he truly believed he was The Joker, well, I don't know.

[Runscott]

Legal systems have always struggled with the definition of insanity as a defense. Does it mean the inability to tell right from wrong? Or does it mean the inability to control one's actions? Or something else? I think for most people, including myself, it's hard to believe someone who for months carefully plans a crime is not "sane" by any definition. On the other hand, if he truly believed he was The Joker, well, I don't know.

I think most people struggle with the term 'insane', as well. To me, anyone who commits the premeditated murder of people he doesn't even know, must be 'insane' on some level. Tough call (or should be).

Interesting that you brought up "the inability to control one's actions". Antipsychotics can be used to bring a manic patient down to a state where they can fake sanity well enough to get through a competency evaluation so that they can testify in their own behalf. Despite this, they are still mentally ill, and once off their meds are likely to re-enter their psychotic state.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, to me premeditation and planning is more consistent with being evil (knowing right from wrong but choosing to do wrong) than insane. But of course it's a case by case inquiry, in an imperfect world, where ultimately people make that judgment based on conflicting testimony of paid psychiatrists, and of course their common sense.

[Matthew H]

Thank you for the offer, Scott. I will be contacting you when I run into my next hurdle. BTW, injectable meds that are effective for a month is the latest thing, and somewhat promising to me.

Peter, IMO, schizophrenia should show up in a ct scan, otherwise, if it were up to me, the insanity plea shouldn't be allowed for people just having a bad day.

Leon, you raise a valid argument, if it turns out there is something wrong with this guy, the arms dealer should be prosecuted as well... It doesn't take a psychologist to see.

[pariah1107]

The Thorazine shuffle? Do you even know what Thorazine is for? It's used to treat Schizophrenia, which is a mental illness.


Uh, Runscott, I am a Certified Nurses Assistant. Yes, I know what thorazine is used for. Also, a punk rock fan and the song, "thorazine shuffle", has been covered by everyone from the Sex Pistols to Government Mule. My words may have been poorly chosen, my point was he seemed to be heavily medicated in court. I agree with your general premise, mental illness is often neglected or ignored by those around sometimes with tragic consequences.

[Runscott]

Uh, Runscott, I am a Certified Nurses Assistant. Yes, I know what thorazine is used for. Also, a punk rock fan and the song, "thorazine shuffle", has been covered by everyone from the Sex Pistols to Government Mule. My words may have been poorly chosen, my point was he seemed to be heavily medicated in court. I agree with your general premise, mental illness is often neglected or ignored by those around sometimes with tragic consequences.

There was no way of me knowing that. I responded to your words, which is what I always try to do.

Edited to add: To me, if he was heavily medicated, this would be an indication that he was manic and had to be sedated for safety reasons. Is it true that people are given antipsychotics simply to make them look insane? I have never heard of that.

[Runscott]

Scott, to me premeditation and planning is more consistent with being evil (knowing right from wrong but choosing to do wrong) than insane. But of course it's a case by case inquiry, in an imperfect world, where ultimately people make that judgment based on conflicting testimony of paid psychiatrists, and of course their common sense.

I think you are probably right, but it seems odd that there was no prior indication of evil. Many people don't realize that a mental break does not necessarily affect one's ability to premeditate and plan, and in many cases cognitive abilities improve - many people do some of their best work while in a manic state.

The judgement made by people using their 'common sense' is really what would be of concern to me, as most people really don't understand mental illness. Another curiosity is that in situations where there is a choice, the mentally ill will often ask for a jury trial, trusting the 'common sense' of such jurors over a judge, who they perceive as being the enemy, when in fact the judge (especially in mental health court) will have far more insight into their condition.

(Edited to remove possibly offensive statement)

[Runscott]

Thank you for the offer, Scott. I will be contacting you when I run into my next hurdle. BTW, injectable meds that are effective for a month is the latest thing, and somewhat promising to me.

Peter, IMO, schizophrenia should show up in a ct scan, otherwise, if it were up to me, the insanity plea shouldn't be allowed for people just having a bad day.

Leon, you raise a valid argument, if it turns out there is something wrong with this guy, the arms dealer should be prosecuted as well... It doesn't take a psychologist to see.

There is a guy down in Tacoma who will do brain scans that show the damaged areas very clearly - same guy who did this for NFL players who had suffered brain trauma. I know someone who got one done for their schizophrenic son and showed it to him - that was how he got the insight to realize he had a damaged brain and needed to take meds, so it will definitely show the damage of a mental break.

I'm pretty sure this is the guy: http://www.amenclinics.com/?p=5823&option=com_wordpress&Itemid=204

[vintagetoppsguy]

Medications, brain scans, psych exams, etc are one way to deal with loons; arming yourself and being prepared is another. I choose the latter and apparently so do a lot of other folks in Colorado:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/

[Peter_Spaeth]

In Arizona you don't even need a permit. Why didn't anyone take down Jared Loughner, surely people in that large Arizona crowd had guns. My supposition -- when it happens that fast, it's a lot easier to react in theory than in practice.

[brickyardkennedy]

In Arizona you don't even need a permit. Why didn't anyone take down Jared Loughner, surely people in that large Arizona crowd had guns. My supposition -- when it happens that fast, it's a lot easier to react in theory than in practice.

When maybe a dozen people in a theater start pulling guns, who do you shoot? How do you discern the good guys from the potential accomplices? Do you shoot at the guy already firing or at the guy next to you waving a gun around, who may put a couple of rounds in you? Unrealistic to believe that, with a dozen or two guns going off, in such a chaotic situation, that even more innocent people wouldn't be killed or injured by the wanna be good guys. Even trained, disciplined cops, have shot one another in gun battles with criminals or have shot undercover cops because they couldn't tell they were one of their own.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Well said, Bob. To expand on that, yes, Peter, Arizona does have an open carry law. However, that law does not apply to all places. I'm guessing that a political event is one of those places in which the open carry law doesn't apply. I may be wrong on that and somebody can take the time to look it up if they feel they need to prove me wrong, but it's just a guess.

[barrysloate]

It doesn't surprise me that in the wake of this incident, some are calling for stricter gun laws, and others suggest more Americans should go out and get guns. It's our great divide.

And as Bob just pointed out, can you picture a pitch black movie theatre where dozens of spectators are armed, and all start shooting at who they think is the bad guy, without really being able to see clearly, and with kids and adults running in all directions...not to mention the stress each of them is dealing with under such horrific conditions. I don't know what the answer is, but that hardly looks like a great choice.

[Matthew H]

Medications, brain scans, psych exams, etc are one way to deal with loons; arming yourself and being prepared is another. I choose the latter and apparently so do a lot of other folks in Colorado:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/

Yes, many of the folks in South Central LA feel the same way. Most of the gang related homicide cases end up manslaughter due to there being no real proof as to who was just defending themselves... Too bad for the kids that get caught in the crossfire. Maybe they should be armed too. I totally agree with "a lot of other folks in Colorado" We need more guns. If people had guns that night they could have shot back... He did have body armor though, so the next time you bring your family out to the movies, make sure everyone has their gun and body armor on. There, problem solved.

[Runscott]

Medications, brain scans, psych exams, etc are one way to deal with loons; arming yourself and being prepared is another. I choose the latter and apparently so do a lot of other folks in Colorado:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/

Preserved to remind me of the public mentality toward "dealing with loons". Thanks for your insight David.

[pariah1107]

Is it true that people are given antipsychotics simply to make them look insane? I have never heard of that.

No. Typically a 72 hour mental health evaluation and civil commitment hearing are necessary to medicate someone involuntarily. He would not be given psychotropics for the sake of appearance by any responsible health professional. It would be necessary only if he was a danger to himself or others, which in this case is a statement of the obvious.

My guess is he was evaluated by mental health officials over the weekend prior to his arraignment on Monday, and it was deemed necessary to pacify him. Thorazine is a powerful, older, antipsychotic and rarely used because of its side effects, more likely he was sedated with haldol. Seeing the suspect in court he did exhibit some symptoms of psychotropics including heavy eyelids, dizziness (head bobbing), enlarged pupils, and shuffling (though that may be from the leg irons).

[nolemmings]

In Arizona you don't even need a permit. Why didn't anyone take down Jared Loughner, surely people in that large Arizona crowd had guns. My supposition -- when it happens that fast, it's a lot easier to react in theory than in practice.

Peter, there was indeed a young man at the Tucson shooting who was armed and I believe he even drew his weapon coming out of the Safeway. He was asked why he didn't fire and he stated something to the effect that the chaos and speed at which events were happening made him at first uncertain of his target and then concerned that he might hit others. I don't want to put words in his mouth so I am sure you can get better info through googling, but I remember seeing his TV interview and that was the gist of what I recall. I know I was glad he didn't fire given the way he described the scene, and I remember that the topic of an armed crowd was discussed, with law enforcement commenting how that scenario would almost certainly have made things worse.

Edited to add: the crowd was not that large, it was just a meet and greet outside of a grocery store on a Saturday morning, and I do not believe it was even all that widely publicized

[Runscott]

No. Typically a 72 hour mental health evaluation and civil commitment hearing are necessary to medicate someone involuntarily. He would not be given psychotropics for the sake of appearance by any responsible health professional. It would be necessary only if he was a danger to himself or others, which in this case is a statement of the obvious.

My guess is he was evaluated by mental health officials over the weekend prior to his arraignment on Monday, and it was deemed necessary to pacify him. Thorazine is a powerful, older, antipsychotic and rarely used because of its side effects, more likely he was sedated with haldol. Seeing the suspect in court he did exhibit some symptoms of psychotropics including heavy eyelids, dizziness (head bobbing), enlarged pupils, and shuffling (though that may be from the leg irons).

It was a rhetorical question, based on your insinuation that he was given thorazine in order to prepare for an insanity plea, which might not be an obviously ridiculous statement to some on this board.

I hate threads like this, as they just create angst for everyone - I am certain that I should have never posted, but feel compelled to respond to the resulting comments. This guy killed a bunch of people and hundreds of relatives and friends are grieving - my heart goes out to them. It also goes out to the family of the perpetrator. I understand the gun control debate, but some of the comments about mental illness are just mind-numbing. They make it clear what a huge road we have ahead of us if we are going to address the problem of mental illness in any meaningful way.

[zljones]

The big problem in our country is that people and the media want to dig into the psychology of these killers, not only that there is analysis in detail on the news and newspapers and people talking about the killer and what made him tick and his private life. Everyone wants to know what he was like, What are his interests? What is his mental illness? Why did he kill so many with out remorse?
Because our society showers so much attention on these killers, then other sickos will kill as well because they want to be heard. These sickos like to have their faces on the news, they like people to want to learn about them. They crave the attention. These are more than likely angry individuals that want to lash out and show the world what they are all about. They lead insignificant lives and are starving for attention. Sadly our society keeps on feeding into this stuff and keeps wanting to learn more about it. If we show eagerness that we want to learn about these killers, more of them will emerge to take innocent lives. I for one have no interest on what made this guy shoot everyone, I just want to see him brought to justice. If we as a society did not pay so much attention to all these sick killers, then maybe there would be less situations like this.
There is a reason why many University Officials do not want to talk about this and it's because they don't want to feed the fire. Ever since our society has paid attention to serial killers and shooters, there has been a rise in these type of killings.

[packs]

Been hearing a lot of talk about gun control. I don't think it would have impacted what happened. The guy bought all of his weapons legally and had no criminal history at all. Even with the strictest gun control laws, he still would have been able to purchase the weapons.

Bottom line is if people are going to kill other people the law isn't standing in their way. Murder is illegal and it happens every day. You can't control people with rules.

[teetwoohsix]

My condolences to the victims and their families, this is a senseless tragedy that no human being should ever have to experience.

God Bless America. Guns now, free speech later?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Runscott]

The big problem in our country is that people and the media want to dig into the psychology of these killers, not only that there is analysis in detail on the news and newspapers and people talking about the killer and what made him tick and his private life. Everyone wants to know what he was like, What are his interests? What is his mental illness? Why did he kill so many with out remorse?
Because our society showers so much attention on these killers, then other sickos will kill as well because they want to be heard. These sickos like to have their faces on the news, they like people to want to learn about them. They crave the attention. These are more than likely angry individuals that want to lash out and show the world what they are all about. They lead insignificant lives and are starving for attention. Sadly our society keeps on feeding into this stuff and keeps wanting to learn more about it. If we show eagerness that we want to learn about these killers, more of them will emerge to take innocent lives. I for one have no interest on what made this guy shoot everyone, I just want to see him brought to justice. If we as a society did not pay so much attention to all these sick killers, then maybe there would be less situations like this.
There is a reason why many University Officials do not want to talk about this and it's because they don't want to feed the fire. Ever since our society has paid attention to serial killers and shooters, there has been a rise in these type of killings.

Wow, now I finally understand. Thanks Zack!

Anyone want to form a posse?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Wow, now I finally understand. Thanks Zack!

Anyone want to form a posse?

Scott,

I have a question for you. How were the mentally ill treated say 100 years ago? In other words, if a person was diagnosed with a mental condition what was done with them?

[Frank A]

We don't need a posse, just a rope.

[bmarlowe1]

Been hearing a lot of talk about gun control. I don't think it would have impacted what happened. The guy bought all of his weapons legally and had no criminal history at all. Even with the strictest gun control laws, he still would have been able to purchase the weapons....

If a fully automatic AR-15 had been as easily obtained, don't you think he would have obtained and used it? The restrictions on fully automatic weapons while not perfect, are effective. Their use by criminals is relatively uncommon. Why must we always assume that other restrictions would not be effective?

[Runscott]

By the way, Zack, I know someone who is in their early '20s and bipolar with schizoaffective disorder. Before his first manic break, it's true that he had drug problems, but he was not hateful or particularly angry. Now he is very angry and until recently hospitalized, was carrying a gun and threatening to kill people (while in a manic episode). No one who knows him ... now, with his new manic mind .... has any doubt that he would have carried out the threats. He's currently hospitalized, finally taking medication voluntarily, and doing very well. He didn't hurt anyone. This only occurred because he had a family that went above and beyond what many are capable of.

If more people asked questions about mental illness, then awareness might rise ,and as a result, funding. That leads to more hospital beds, more psychiatrists per patient, less inappropriate drugs administered simply because of lobbying, quicker identification by the public of mental illness symptoms....and fewer manic or psychotic episodes that result in harm to others. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I think the people related to the five who were killed at Cafe Racer in Seattle, by a mentally ill man whose parents had unsuccessfully sought treatment for for years, would agree with me.

If the person I mentioned in the first paragraph had not been hospitalized, and had killed a few people, I WOULD NOT have been looking for a death penalty for him. I would have been horrified that, while out of his mind, he had carried out actions that he would not have done otherwise.

If Ian Stawicki had gotten the help he needed, I doubt those people at Cafe Racer would have been killed. But who cares? Murder is murder - let God sort out his own.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program from the mountains of Idaho.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The restrictions on fully automatic weapons while not perfect, are effective.

You can take many semi-automatic rifles (including the AR-15) and convert them to fully automatic with minimal effort. Just Google it.

[Runscott]

Scott,

I have a question for you. How were the mentally ill treated say 100 years ago? In other words, if a person was diagnosed with a mental condition what was done with them?

We have made great strides. At what point do you think it should have stopped? 100 years ago, perhaps?

Edited to add: I don't read the Marietta Daily Journal, and I'm not sure why I'm reading the posts in this thread. I'll bow out now and let you guys go look for rope.

I've exchanged a few constructive PM's regarding this subject - if anyone else has anything useful to say about this, please feel free to PM me.

[bmarlowe1]

You can take many semi-automatic rifles (including the AR-15) and convert them to fully automatic with minimal effort. Just Google it.

So - how do you explain the extremely low rate of murder by machine gun?

[packs]

You are avoiding the larger issue at play which is the motivation a person has to kill people regardless of their weapon of choice. A semi-automatic rifle fired the shots. But a person fired the gun. It could have been that gun or any other gun.

[bmarlowe1]

You are avoiding the larger issue at play which is the motivation a person has to kill people regardless of their weapon of choice. A semi-automatic rifle fired the shots. But a person fired the gun. It could have been that gun or any other gun.

No I'm not, but you are avoiding my question - that's fine, you aren't required to answer. As far as I know, threads aren't restricted to a single issue.

As to mental health, very important and there have been interesting posts by knowledgeable people. That doesn't mean that the means used is not an issue worthy of discussion. Why must one exclude the other?

[vintagetoppsguy]

You are avoiding the larger issue at play which is the motivation a person has to kill people regardless of their weapon of choice. A semi-automatic rifle fired the shots. But a person fired the gun. It could have been that gun or any other gun.

Heck, it could even been a blow gun with poison tip darts. I tried to make the same argument. He didn't get it.

[packs]

Murder has always been a societal problem, even before guns or "society." Do you think this man decided to kill as many people as he could so long as he was able to obtain a semi-automatic rifle? Your argument is that he wouldn't have killed as many people, right? To that I would say there is no way to quantify how motivated a deranged person is or what they are capable of.

[bmarlowe1]

Heck, it could even been a blow gun with poison tip darts. I tried to make the same argument. He didn't get it.

While at least Packs understands the argument, you haven't understood any of this. Try and shoot 70 people in a minute with a blow gun.

[bmarlowe1]

Your argument is that he wouldn't have killed as many people, right? To that I would say there is no way to quantify how motivated a deranged person is or what they are capable of.

Yes that is my argument. I find your response incomprehensible. Do you not think he could have killed more people with a full-auto?

Your argument seems to be that just because some deranged lunatic might come up with a non-gun means of killing a lot of people, we should not have gun restrictions. Is that right?

[packs]

A lot of media outlets share your viewpoint. In America we have been trained to view everything as a statistic. The first stories that came out focused almost entirely on the death or injury toll. Different numbers were reported in each story. What I'm saying is this guy was going to kill people any way he could. You are focused on how many people. If less people died, would that somehow be better than understanding why events like this happen and what motivates a person to do this? I don't have the answer to that question but I know it has nothing to do with gun laws.

[vintagetoppsguy]

While at least Packs understands the argument, you haven't understood any of this. Try and shoot 70 people in a minute with a blow gun.

I already made my point several pages back. You either didn't see, ignored it or don't comprehend it. My point is this. The shooter had 4 weapons: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 2 Glock 40 caliber handguns and 1 Remington pump action shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with just one handgun and multiple loaded clips as he did with all 4 guns. A Glock 40 caliber with 4 loaded clips can be expended in under a minute. He didn't need ther other three guns.

Let's just say for a minute that the shooter only had one hand gun with multiple loaded clip and the carnage was still the same. Now what's your argument?

[bmarlowe1]

I already made my point several pages back. You either didn't see, ignored it or don't comprehend it. My point is this. The shooter had 4 weapons: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 2 Glock 40 caliber handguns and 1 Remington pump action shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with just one handgun and multiple loaded clips as he did with all 4 guns. A Glock 40 caliber with 4 loaded clips can be expended in under a minute. He didn't need ther other three guns.

Let's just say for a minute that the shooter only had one hand gun with multiple loaded clip and the carnage was still the same. Now what's your argument?

I already addressed this (in at 3 prior posts). For example post #72:
"I think it [civilization] could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire."

This problem of course includes the Glock - it is of course now ubiquitous and a major problem.

[vintagetoppsguy]

"I think it [civilization] could very well continue without private ownership of guns that have a large magazine capacity and a high rate of fire."

My Glock holds 10 rounds. I do not consider that a "large magazine capacity." I think most would agree.

In other words if the shooter had killed his victims with a 6 shot revolver, we wouldn't be having a discussion on gun control? Is that what you're saying? Do you really, really believe that?

[packs]

Saying less guns equals less deaths is an easy solution to a complicated problem. I don't see any truth in that statement either. To say that simply eliminating guns would solve the problem of mass murders or murderers in general seems overly simplistic. To say that shooting a gun makes killing people easier I think is false as well. What makes it hard for most people to kill are the moral questions surrounding the act, not the method. Eliminate the morality and it becomes very easy.

[SetBuilder]

I already made my point several pages back. You either didn't see, ignored it or don't comprehend it. My point is this. The shooter had 4 weapons: an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 2 Glock 40 caliber handguns and 1 Remington pump action shotgun. He could have done the same amount of damage with just one handgun and multiple loaded clips as he did with all 4 guns. A Glock 40 caliber with 4 loaded clips can be expended in under a minute. He didn't need ther other three guns.

Let's just say for a minute that the shooter only had one hand gun with multiple loaded clip and the carnage was still the same. Now what's your argument?

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with a couple of handguns and a few extra clips.

[barrysloate]

Saying less guns equals less deaths is an easy solution to a complicated problem. I don't see any truth in that statement either. To say that simply eliminating guns would solve the problem of mass murders or murderers in general seems overly simplistic.

I've mostly stayed out of today's discussion but I can't bear seeing Mark take it on the chin. So I am going to say one final thing, and feel free to respond, but I won't be back. Promise this is my last post on this thread.

For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws, did it ever cross your mind that even though the most determined killers will probably still reek their havoc regardless of the laws, isn't it within the realm of possibility that maybe one or two people might get caught with tougher laws in place? And if even one person is stopped, wouldn't that save the life of somebody's spouse or child or parent?

No constitutional rights would be violated if the assault ban went back into effect. If you want a hunting rifle you are legally able to have one. If you want to carry a handgun for protection you are allowed to. But the constitution doesn't give you the right to have any weapon you want to, or to build up an arsenal like this Colorado idiot.

We always make distinctions in life. There are powerful drugs that are legal- codeine and xanax come to mind- and there are powerful drugs such as heroin and meth that are not. Society makes distinctions and we accept them. And it's okay to distinguish between different types of guns too.

But instead of looking at the problem in the most open minded way possible, too many people stand behind a very rigid interpretation of what the government may or may not be allowed to do. But the NRA won't even budge a fraction of an inch on anything. There isn't a modicum of flexibility in any gun law whatsoever.

Maybe nearly every deranged individual who wants to kill still will do so even if assasult weapons were banned. I don't know what's inside the heart of these maniacs. But maybe, just maybe, one person will be stopped in his tracks. If there were some kind of database to check gun and ammunition purchases, perhaps somebody would have noticed that Mr. Holmes was buying 6000 bullets and reported it to the feds. And maybe the feds would have decided to question him. I don't know, it's pure speculation.

But if you believe that the status quo is all we need, then the status quo is what we are going to have.

And with that gentlemen, I bid you a good evening. I won't be posting here again. Thanks for listening.

[bmarlowe1]

My Glock holds 10 rounds. I do not consider that a "large magazine capacity." I think most would agree.

In other words if the shooter had killed his victims with a 6 shot revolver, we wouldn't be having a discussion on gun control? Is that what you're saying? Do you really, really believe that?

You wouldn't be having it with me, and the toll would likely be lower. Do you really, really believe he would not have killed more people with a fully automatic weapon?

As to the Glock - the rate of fire plus the fast reload is something that in my view we don't need, though I do appreciate that some may feel they need such a thing for personal protection. However, some may feel that they need a fully automatic weapon for personal protection.

[Peter_Spaeth]

We have a murder rate much much higher than Western Europe, Canada, etc. but obviously that has nothing to do with differences in the availability of guns.

[vintagetoppsguy]

For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws, did it ever cross your mind that even though the most determined killers will probably still reek their havoc regardless of the laws, isn't it within the realm of possibility that maybe one or two people might get caught with tougher laws in place? And if even one person is stopped, wouldn't that save the life of somebody's spouse or child or parent?

Barry, you're absolutely right. However, in reading this thread, I didn't see anybody say that the gun laws didn't need to be changed. You certainly won't hear that from me. Heck, I even gave a few suggestions on how we could tighten gun laws. Others did too. I'm not sure where you get "For those who don't want to see any changes made in the gun laws..."

[vintagetoppsguy]

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 with a couple of handguns and a few extra clips.

Yup. And the University of Texas tower sniper, Charles Whitman, killed 16 people and wounded another 31 with every day hunting rifles - not to mention the two stabbing deaths (his mother and wife) just before that, but let's ignore all that and only focus on assault weapons.

[zljones]

By the way, Zack, I know someone who is in their early '20s and bipolar with schizoaffective disorder. Before his first manic break, it's true that he had drug problems, but he was not hateful or particularly angry. Now he is very angry and until recently hospitalized, was carrying a gun and threatening to kill people (while in a manic episode). No one who knows him ... now, with his new manic mind .... has any doubt that he would have carried out the threats. He's currently hospitalized, finally taking medication voluntarily, and doing very well. He didn't hurt anyone. This only occurred because he had a family that went above and beyond what many are capable of.

If more people asked questions about mental illness, then awareness might rise ,and as a result, funding. That leads to more hospital beds, more psychiatrists per patient, less inappropriate drugs administered simply because of lobbying, quicker identification by the public of mental illness symptoms....and fewer manic or psychotic episodes that result in harm to others. Wouldn't that be a good thing? I think the people related to the five who were killed at Cafe Racer in Seattle, by a mentally ill man whose parents had unsuccessfully sought treatment for for years, would agree with me.

If the person I mentioned in the first paragraph had not been hospitalized, and had killed a few people, I WOULD NOT have been looking for a death penalty for him. I would have been horrified that, while out of his mind, he had carried out actions that he would not have done otherwise.

If Ian Stawicki had gotten the help he needed, I doubt those people at Cafe Racer would have been killed. But who cares? Murder is murder - let God sort out his own.

Now, back to our regularly-scheduled program from the mountains of Idaho.

This is not what I meant. You are taking things way out of proportion. I simply said there is too much media attention, and these guys the usually do this stuff are not mentally ill. How often do they get an insanity plea? Almost never. My problem is that there is too much media attention on this. How will the media and causing widespread panic help us understand mental illness, especially if many of these killer are not mentally ill at all. Dahmer, Gacy were all never diagnosed with disorders. You are acting like I have no compasion for the mentally ill. I just have no compassion for those who kill for the hell of it. Is this guy one of them, I do not know yet. But tons of media exposure to it and our society in a state of fear is ridiculous.

[Frank A]

I have guns with 30 round magazines. So what? I don't go around shooting at people. This guy was a nut case, as are all who would kill another human being except in time of war. No sane person would shoot another. All killers are nuts. As has been said a million times, if it wasn't a gun it would have been some other way this guy would have done it. Why do I have guns with such firepower? Because the world is in big trouble and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. The day will come in this country as all others that I may be happy to have them. I hope I'm wrong, for I sure as hell don"t want to have to use them for such a purpose. But no one should have the right to take them from me. They are there for protection if needed. Frank

[zljones]

I have guns with 30 round magazines. So what? I don't go around shooting at people. This guy was a nut case, as are all who would kill another human being except in time of war. No sane person would shoot another. All killers are nuts. As has been said a million times, if it wasn't a gun it would have been some other way this guy would have done it. Why do I have guns with such firepower? Because the world is in big trouble and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. The day will come in this country as all others that I may be happy to have them. I hope I'm wrong, for I sure as hell don"t want to have to use them for such a purpose. But no one should have the right to take them from me. They are there for protection if needed. Frank

+1 proud gun owner here too

[bmarlowe1]

I have guns with 30 round magazines. So what? I don't go around shooting at people. This guy was a nut case, as are all who would kill another human being except in time of war. No sane person would shoot another. All killers are nuts. As has been said a million times, if it wasn't a gun it would have been some other way this guy would have done it. Why do I have guns with such firepower? Because the world is in big trouble and it's going to get a hell of a lot worse. The day will come in this country as all others that I may be happy to have them. I hope I'm wrong, for I sure as hell don"t want to have to use them for such a purpose. But no one should have the right to take them from me. They are there for protection if needed. Frank

Where would you draw the line on what you should be allowed to possess?

[Peter_Spaeth]

How many kids die each year from accidental gunshots? Just curious.

[Frank A]

I would draw the line with what I own. I have no full automatic weapons and don't feel that anyone not in the military does. I however am sane, I think. However there are many crazies out there who own such weapons. Gangs and drug dealers come to mind. But our government doesn't seem to make much of an attempt to get them. Me, I just want to live in peace and be left alone. However being able to protect myself if needbe makes me feel better.

[prestigecollectibles]

When was the last shooting on a commercial airline? Thank you gun control.

[vintagetoppsguy]

How many kids die each year from accidental gunshots? Just curious.

I don't know the answer to that question, but just one is too many. Peter, there are responsible gun owners and then there are irresponsible gun owners - just like dog owners or anything else.

How many kids die each year from falling down the stairs? I bet you money it's more than die from accidental gunshots. So, do we ban 2 story homes? Or do we make a law that says if you have kids under a certain age then you must live in a one story home? You're doing your best to take the focus off the real issue here which is personal reposnsibility.

Edited to add: Question for Peter (or anybody else). What's the difference between a child finding a gun and accidentally killing themselves or finding their parents drugs, ingesting them accidentally killing themselves? So, why don't we just make drugs illegal? Oh, wait! We did! How's that working out? The bad people still get the drugs just like the bad people would continue to get the guns even if we banned them all. Once again, the focus should be on personal responsibility.

[Frank A]

I have one last question for all who want guns gone. How do you think this could possibly be done? A criminal is never in a million years going to give up his gun. Even with all the guns here now more are smuggled in. It is now, and will be forever, impossible to get the guns off the street in the USA. So you are saying regulate more so protection from criminals is less. I understand your wants but it is impossible to do. I wish all guns could be gotten, but it will never happen.

[bmarlowe1]

How many kids die each year from falling down the stairs? I bet you money it's more than die from accidental gunshots. So, do we ban 2 story homes?

I doubt that your premise is true. In any case, this is essentailly the same issue that has been responded to several times, yet you ignore the response and keep raising it. Multi-story dwellings are essential to economic housing. In contrast, society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands.

[bmarlowe1]

So, why don't we just make drugs illegal? Oh, wait! We did! How's that working out? The bad people still get the drugs just like the bad people would continue to get the guns even if we banned them all. Once again, the focus should be on personal responsibility.

Your premise here seems to be that controls cannot work, but in fact they do. See prestigecollectables post just above, and controls on fully automatic weapons have been remarkably successful.

BTW - when was the last time you bought OTC drugs that weren't in a sealed container. How many "Tylenol murders" have their been since this has been required? Is there a way a lunatic could get around this - of course there is, yet it has been very effective.

[vintagetoppsguy]

In contrast, society will do just find without certain types of firearms in private hands.

How many times are you going to say this? If you feel this strong about it, quit your job, go to Washington and fight for your cause. Otherwise, you're just sounding like a broken record.

When you say "certian types of firearms", I'm guessing you mean assault rifles? How many examples of other mass shootings have we provided in which assault weapons weren't used? V-Tech shooter didn't have an assualt weapon. UT sniper didn't have an assault weapon. Jared Loughner didn't have an assault weapon. Etc, Etc, Etc,.

Let me ask you Mark, do you really believe that if assault weapons were banned, that the mass killings would stop? Or even be reduced?

[bmarlowe1]

When you say "certian types of firearms", I'm guessing you mean assault rifles?

No, read my posts. Frank A is of course correct in that dealing with existing weapons is a huge problem.

You have several times said essentially the same thing, likening guns to motor vehicles and now private housing. I find the analogies ludicrous and have explained why.

[vintagetoppsguy]

No, read my posts. Frank A is of course correct in that dealing with existing weapons is a huge problem.

You have several times said essentially the same thing, likening guns to motor vehicles and now private housing. I find the analogies ludicrous and have explained why.

No? You didn't mean assault weapons? Then what do you mean by, "society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands." Please clarify "certain types of firearms" because I took it to mean assault weapons.

[bmarlowe1]

Post 72, post 164, post 169.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Post 72, post 164, post 169.

Let's cut the crap, Mark. Just answer the question. You said, "Society would do just fine without certain types of firearms in private hands." Please be specific and explain what types of firearms you are referring to.

[bmarlowe1]

The posts are general clear and intentionally general.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The posts are clear.

Backed into a corner and you can't answer the question. Ok.

[bmarlowe1]

Backed into a corner and you can't answer the question. Ok.

Discussing the relative merits of, say, a vintage govt. 1911 (or even a specific revolver) vs a Glock 17 would be ludicrous in a forum like this, hence general comments are most appropriate. I think this is evident to most. If you don't understand what I posted, I don't know how to make it more clear.

You do seem to have trouble understanding the posts you are responding to (at least mine). Maybe it's my writing style.

I'm still waiting to hear why equating a multi-level house or a truck (clear economic necessities) to a gun in the context of the arguments you made is anything but ridiculous.

[tiger8mush]

Mark & David, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you both seem to be arguing that we should allow guns but not the kind that can fire a million rounds per second with an endless supply of ammo? And that maybe if there was some signs that the feds could've picked up on, then those signs should've been looked into in the case of Holmes, the Colorado shooter? It seems like you both agree but are just coming at it from different angles.

I'm not big into politics, but I believe in less laws/gov't (maybe I'm a libertarian???). I don't own a gun, but believe they should be allowed. Freedom to protect oneself and family. If a few restrictions go into play when purchasing a gun, such as a waiting period etc, then I'm fine with it.

An example to go along with what David is saying, people die every day in backyard pools. We create a few guidelines to minimize deaths/injuries (such as fences around the pools, "no diving" signs in shallow depths, etc) but unless you ban backyard pools there will always be accidents. We shouldn't ban backyard pools and we shouldn't ban guns. Just educate people on them and create guidelines to keep the bad people with bad intentions away.

Carry on ...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Mark & David, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you both seem to be arguing that we should allow guns but not the kind that can fire a million rounds per second with an endless supply of ammo?

Rob, you're pretty close. I know the "million rounds per second" comment was an exaggeration, but I think that's where me and Mark differ. I agree that fully automatic weapons (the million rounds per socond ones) should be banned - and they already are - but I think he's saying that semi-automatic weapons should be banned as well. If he is, good luck with that one, but won't clarify his comments.

The AR-15 "assault rifle" like the one used in Aurora was not a fully automatic weapon. It was a semi-automatic weapon, like many, many other rifles/pistols.

A fully automatic weapon will disburse rounds at a high rate of speed as long as the finger is held on the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon will only fire with each pull of the trigger.

Also, the AR-15 only holds one round in the chamber. The gun itself is not a high capacity gun. The rest of the rounds are housed in the clip. You can get anything from a 5 round clip (very reasonable) to a 100 round drum/clip (not reasonable). So this conversation shouldn't be about "gun control," it should be a magazine capacity issue. I already said in post #55 that we should "ban high capacity clips." What else does Mark want? He just wants to argue and be vague with his comments.

[bmarlowe1]

So this conversation shouldn't be about "gun control," it should be a magazine capacity issue. I already said in post #55 that we should "ban high capacity clips." What else does Mark want? He just wants to argue and be vague with his comments.

I saw that post and I did not disagree with you on magazine size. It is a major concern. If you carefully look at what I posted, it was primarily directed at the specific analogies you presented. That is because I often hear them (or similar) as general arguments against restrictions (including magazine size, ammunition availability, whatever, etc.) and in my view they aren't well thought through.

[Runscott]

My apologies to Zach and Ty for my responses - I took their posts in the worst possible way, which is always a bad move.

[zljones]

My apologies to Zach and Ty for my responses - I took their posts in the worst possible way, which is always a bad move.

Hey no problem, my post needed more detail anyway so I apologize as well.

[pariah1107]

Perfectly alright Scott. My apologies to you as well. Poorly chosen wording on my part.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/25/obama-takes-on-gun-violence-in-new-orleans-speech/?hpt=hp_t2

[Runscott]

"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

I have to agree with the President on that one. But as others have said, Holmes might have found an even more hideous killing method such as tossing grenades in the theater, poison gas, etc.

[Frank A]

Well well well. It seems that our great president has not been speaking about the gun issue because behind closed doors they are planning to sign a Internathional arms trade treaty with the UN. Since when do we need to regulate our freedom to own guns with foreign nations. Your slimey government is taking another route to take your guns away. Then they will find something else to take away. These lowlifes in washington don't give a dam about this country, just the money they can line their pockets with. I know one thing, the first foreign basterd who comes to get my guns will be shot on sight. Your current leaders are a bunch of scumbags. Frank

[vintagetoppsguy]

Well well well. It seems that our great president has not been speaking about the gun issue because behind closed doors they are planning to sign a Internathional arms trade treaty with the UN. Since when do we need to regulate our freedom to own guns with foreign nations. Your slimey government is taking another route to take your guns away. Then they will find something else to take away. These lowlifes in washington don't give a dam about this country, just the money they can line their pockets with. I know one thing, the first foreign basterd who comes to get my guns will be shot on sight. Your current leaders are a bunch of scumbags. Frank

Frank,

You are referring to the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in which meetings have been going on all month in New York City. I've been following this closely. Yes, this is an attmept to take guns out of the hands of private ownership. Some say that would never happen in this country, but pre-conference position papers call for exactly that. Any treaty with the UN would supersede the 2nd Ammendment. Anybody that doesn't believe that can look it up. It's a fact!

Fortunately, we have the NRA there on our side to make sure our own government doesn't undermine the Constitution. We also have many senators on our side as any such treaty would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, 57 senators signed a letter and sent it to Barry Soetoro to remind him of that. In other words, it wouldn't pass Senate approval.

The sad thing is that they try to keep things like this quiet. You don't hear anything about it on the news and I bet you that many gun owners don't even know what's going on. It might be signed, but it will never be ratified.

Edited to change my wording (for Peter)

[Peter_Spaeth]

A "dumb ass"? David, you only debase yourself referring to the President, or anyone really, that way.

[Kenny Cole]

Frank,

You are referring to the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in which meetings have been going on all month in New York City. I've been following this closely. Yes, this is an attmept to take guns out of the hands of private ownership. Some say that would never happen in this country, but pre-conference position papers call for exactly that. Any treaty with the UN would supersede the 2nd Ammendment. Anybody that doesn't believe that can look it up. It's a fact!

Fortunately, we have the NRA there on our side to make sure our own government doesn't undermine the Constitution. We also have many senators on our side as any such treaty would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, 57 senators signed a letter and sent it to Barry Soetoro to remind him of that. In other words, it wouldn't pass Senate approval.

The sad thing is that they try to keep things like this quiet. You don't hear anything about it on the news and I bet you that many gun owners don't even know what's going on. It might be signed, but it will never be ratified.

Edited to change my wording (for Peter)


Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny you are right, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Kenny you are right, a treaty cannot supersede the Constitution.

My premises was made on Article VI. Section 2 which says, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

If I’m interpreting it wrong, then my apologies. I don’t want to give out false information.

Edited to add:

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have both said that international law should take precedence over US law.

[nolemmings]

Unless the Supreme Court has overruled Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), I'm pretty doubtful that treaties supersede the Constitution.

Duh. Kenny shame on you for pointing out the obvious.

[teetwoohsix]

Words of wisdom:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1994:security-and-self-goverance&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, as I understand it that provision means a treaty takes precedence over the laws of any state -- it's a federalism provision. A law passed by Congress is also the supreme law of the land, but is still subject to the Constitution -- as is a treaty.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

[Runscott]

Wow, I did not think that this thread would go in the direction it has gone.

Sorry I even started this thread

Why? It's a discussion within a discussion thread within a discussion forum: People having intelligent conversation without beating each other to death, which is fairly rare on the internet, and to be commended.

I don't think straying from victim empathy is a bad thing - we all are very aware of how tragic this was.

[nolemmings]

pertinent language from Reid v. Covert:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.

[Runscott]

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

[zljones]

The latest in this morning's news is evidence indicating possible schizophrenia.

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

[Runscott]

The more I read about this guy I am thinking he very well may truly be mentally ill. At first I thought not but now it is seeming like he is.

I don't think it will matter. Murder seems to be the line drawn by the public, and whether or not the killer was mentally ill is irrelevant to them - in fact, it's an impediment in their minds, to getting the justice that society needs. Here's an example, which shows the "common sense" of the jury:

"After pushing a woman, Kendra Webdale, under a moving train, Andrew Goldstein, a former schizophrenic psychiatric patient, was charged and convicted of second-degree murder. Though he had only been released from a mental facility for a couple weeks, the jury rejected Goldstein’s plea of insanity, and sentenced him to twenty-five-to-life in prison. However, to prevent similar incidents, New York passed “Kendra’s Law”, which, had it been in place sooner, would have forced Goldstein to take medication for his condition."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

[Runscott]

Scott, I think juries are skeptical of mental illness defenses because it's difficult to swallow the proposition that someone who carries out a pre-meditated crime is so impaired that they aren't capable of distinguishing right from wrong, or controlling their conduct. Particularly where the evidence of insanity typically would be an expert psychiatrist paid for by the defense, which has been contradicted by a prosecution psychiatrist.

Peter, I'm skeptical of such insanity defenses as well, but the example I showed above indicates that society needs its pound of flesh, even when they know someone was insane PRIOR to killing. I also understand that most people don't understand that the ability to plan a killing does not mean that someone is operating in his own mind - nor do they care (although I'm sure some have slight qualms at having the insane lethally injected), as long as the person was acting with a mind that performed acts rational for a killer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scott let me give you a hypothetical. Schizophrenic, does fine on meds, takes a medication holiday because of side effects or for whatever reason, in uncontrolled state commits murder. Just put him back on meds and send him on his way?

[Matthew H]

Peter, schitzophrenia is not a "get out of jail free card". From what I've heard, the psych wards within the prison system is much worse then the general population. The people in there can be unstable and dangerous.

Your hypothetical is very possible and is something that I deal with on a frequent basis. Not only from "taking a vaction from meds" but also from the meds not having the same effect over time, also over medicating.

What are we supposed to do? The average schitzophrenic doesn't end up mass murdering... Most end up living a VERY difficult life being seriously uncomfortable in their own skin. Not having a normal functioning brain is a hard way to wake up in the morning. It's also very hard on the families of them.

It's very frustrating to me that only mass murder will very slightly raise awareness, and only for a short period of time. It doesn't matter what the jury decides. This guy will never see the light of day, regardless of whether or not they accept an illness plea.

[packs]

I've always been of the opinion that a rational person pleads insanity and an insane person is not aware they're insane.

[Peter_Spaeth]

But Matt, suppose, and maybe it's a hypothetical that doesn't exist, but suppose that a schizophrenic would be normal or at least functional so long as they take meds. What would be the point of confining them indefinitely for a crime they committed while off the meds?

[Runscott]

I've always been of the opinion that a rational person pleads insanity and an insane person is not aware they're insane.

You nailed it.

I've said this in several posts, but it bears repeating: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder affect the part of the brain that controls 'insight'. This means that schizophrenics NEVER know that they are schizophrenic. They have to be talked into taking meds for reasons other than: you are schizophrenic. People with bipolar disorder do not have insight during mania, but usually (but not always) have insight when they come down.

It's a tough concept to wrap your brain around - unfortunately, many psychiatrists can't do it either.

Peter - the 'medical vacation' you refer to is VERY common with schizophrenics; in fact, almost all take such a vacation regularly. It's a tough illness to deal with, but it's still mental illness.

[Runscott]

Peter, schitzophrenia is not a "get out of jail free card". From what I've heard, the psych wards within the prison system is much worse then the general population. The people in there can be unstable and dangerous.

Your hypothetical is very possible and is something that I deal with on a frequent basis. Not only from "taking a vaction from meds" but also from the meds not having the same effect over time, also over medicating.

What are we supposed to do? The average schitzophrenic doesn't end up mass murdering... Most end up living a VERY difficult life being seriously uncomfortable in their own skin. Not having a normal functioning brain is a hard way to wake up in the morning. It's also very hard on the families of them.

It's very frustrating to me that only mass murder will very slightly raise awareness, and only for a short period of time. It doesn't matter what the jury decides. This guy will never see the light of day, regardless of whether or not they accept an illness plea.

Matt - thanks for this post.

[yanks12025]

Did anyone here mention how we sent a notebook with his plans/drawings a week before to his psychiatrist but no one read it.

[Matthew H]

But Matt, suppose, and maybe it's a hypothetical that doesn't exist, but suppose that a schizophrenic would be normal or at least functional so long as they take meds. What would be the point of confining them indefinitely for a crime they committed while off the meds?

Peter, there are many levels of schitzophrenia ranging from mild to the very extreme. Once it's known what a particular individual is capable of, like in this case, or any case involving murder, it's too risky to trust any medication to keep the individual stable enough for reintegration into society, IMO.

I haven't heard of any case where someone snapped, killed somebody, was given medication, and sent home.

It's really up to families, of the mentally ill, to make sure things are ok. For me it's been a 15 year battle that I expect to never end. I'd love to see more funding, better research, and better understanding.

Scott - thanks for you posts too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Matt, do you think it's likely Holmes' family, or psychiatrist, had some clue about just how disturbed he may have been?

[Matthew H]

Matt, do you think it's likely Holmes' family, or psychiatrist, had some clue about just how disturbed he may have been?

Imagine someone, a close family member, suddenly changing into a completely different person, almost like they were possessed. It's really hard to ignore, unless you're trying really hard.

It's now known that he was saw a psychiatrist, confidentiality hides the details for now. A psychiatrist can't prescribe medication but should have referred him to a psychologist.

Schizophrenia can be difficult for a family to come to terms... But what he did/planned doesn't happen overnight. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

I feel so bad for those kids and adults that died. It's important for parents to know this is a possibility and to be aware. No one else will do it; however, we'll see what the psych knew.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Imagine someone, a close family member, suddenly changing into a completely different person, almost like they were possessed. It's really hard to ignore, unless you're trying really hard.

It's now known that he was saw a psychologist, confidentiality hides the details for now. A psychologist can't prescribe medication but should have referred him to a psychiatrist.

Schizophrenia can be difficult for a family to come to terms... But what he did/planned doesn't happen overnight. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

I feel so bad for those kids and adults that died. It's important for parents to know this is a possibility and to be aware. No one else will do it; however, we'll see what the psych knew.

A psychologist can prescribe meds...

[Peter_Spaeth]

He was seeing a psychiatrist, Lynne Fenton, MD.

[Matthew H]

I had it backwards, my mistake.

[Runscott]

Imagine someone, a close family member, suddenly changing into a completely different person, almost like they were possessed. It's really hard to ignore, unless you're trying really hard.

It's now known that he was saw a psychiatrist, confidentiality hides the details for now. A psychiatrist can't prescribe medication but should have referred him to a psychologist.

Schizophrenia can be difficult for a family to come to terms... But what he did/planned doesn't happen overnight. I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

I feel so bad for those kids and adults that died. It's important for parents to know this is a possibility and to be aware. No one else will do it; however, we'll see what the psych knew.

Since this thread has over 5,000 hits, and many young men in their 20's read it, as well as parents of children that age...I'll take advantage and post once more.

No parent wants to admit their child has a mental illness, so they will write off the odd behavior to other things - 'mental illness' will never even cross their minds. Both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder keep the person from having the insight to realize they are ill. Given these unfortunate facts, no one will be prepared. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. This affects MANY people; however, despite the fact that many of your friends have already dealt with it, you won't even be aware of the fact, and if you are - they will spare you the details. I was totally surprised at how many people I know either have it, have a child who has it, or a spouse who has it.

Bottom line - there is usually no one to blame: not for ignorance, for incorrect responses, for anything. It's just a tough situation. The best you can do if it hits your family, is to call someone (or PM someone) who has been through it. They will all help you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-psychiatrist/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[vintagetoppsguy]

Love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4

[Matthew H]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-psychiatrist/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Wow, that was really vague... I don't get the "It takes more than just statements," Part.

I'm guessing the problem here is that Dr Fenton worked for the university and their policies are different. Many cases are evaluated in a hospital, too bad this one wasn't.

My prayers go out to the families of the deceased. :(

[Runscott]

Wow, that was really vague... I don't get the "It takes more than just statements," Part.

I'm guessing the problem here is that Dr Fenton worked for the university and their policies are different. Many cases are evaluated in a hospital, too bad this one wasn't.

My prayers go out to the families of the deceased. :(

Reporting it to police is useless unless he's seen to be an immediate danger. Even then, unless it can be shown to a judge that he is a "grave danger", either to himself or to others, a judge generally won't sign an order to involuntarily confine.

[Matthew H]

Reporting it to police is useless unless he's seen to be an immediate danger. Even then, unless it can be shown to a judge that he is a "grave danger", either to himself or to others, a judge generally won't sign an order to involuntarily confine.

I've seen people get placed on holds by a hospital. Do they call a judge or something? Actually just curious.

[Runscott]

I've seen people get placed on holds by a hospital. Do they call a judge or something? Actually just curious.

It seems that way, but there's a little more to it.

In Washington State, a social worker at the hospital will have a MHP (Mental Health Professional) come out to evaluate the person. If the MHP thinks the person presents a grave danger to himself or others, they will ask a judge to sign the 72-hr hold order. The MHP will look for an available bed at a psychiatric facility, then make arrangements for the person to be transported. If no beds are available, they stay in the E.R. until one is found.

[teetwoohsix]

NM- too negative

Sincerely, Clayton