OT: Colorado shooting

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.