Terrible shooting

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I just stepped away from the TV after listening to as much as I could abut a terrible shooting (many kindergarteners shot. My first thoughts were of how twisted our society has become to the value of human life.

 I am sure by the time I come back from driving my school students home, someone in the media will have renewed the mantra of some form of weapons ban.

In this particular case. It sounds as if someone opened the door and let evil walk in unabated.

[AQUAMAN]

I don't see where bringing alcohol into the mix again, as you have in the past several times, plays with any positive point to this discussion TIger, but do go ahead, and have your fun. This thread, at least to me, is pretty serious in nature. We have before us, as Americans, another horrific tragedy, and people sit around and point fingers at the 2nd Amendment and guns as the only answer to get this put to a stop. Whereas, I am looking past the weapons and looking at the individuals that are committing these acts. I never said you yourself would agree with the majority liberal position, as I think you don't on most issues. I'd be willing to bet that many people knew this 20 year old killer was mentally unstable and dangerous for several years, but did nothing to report it to the authorities. These Cukoo's these days, so I am told, actually have more rights than the rest of us. Too many laws protecting them from being locked up, and who's fault is that afterall, yes, it's all of us. I say we take a very serious look at the mentally ill issues before us and do something to curb it's continuance into the future, or just look the other way, and let this repeat itself, as it has already too often in recent years. I missed your earlier post there Tiger, and I truly think we are both on the same page, thanks.

[XLFD]

Tiger,

If anyone's head is fogged, it may be because you are releasing a lot of steam.  I looked for information to back some of your claims, but I just can't find it, nor can I determine what progressive liberals you are talking about that were "pushing legislation to end warehousing of the mentally ill".  Historically, it could be said that liberals impeded just that, they surely didn't help.

For example, "In the United States, in the fifteen-year period from 1955 (when the state hospital population reached its peak and antipsychotic drugs were widely introduced) to 1970, the inmate populations of state hospitals fell from 559,000 to 339,000. In the ten years between 1970 and 1980, however, seemingly well-intentioned lawsuits aimed at deinstitutionalizing mental patients caused the inmate population to fall even further to 130,000.

These lawsuits had the effect of making it impossible for the states to keep patients with severe mental illnesses in their hospitals. And federal legislation, meanwhile, kept the states from passing the burden of caring for the mentally ill to the federal government. The result was, and continues to be, a swelling of the ranks of the homeless population by the non-medicated mentally ill."  From the  middle of this source .

 

The federal government, led by the long-term Democratically controlled Congress of that time could have taken the burden off the states, but didn't.  Well-intentioned lawsuits (civil litigators are often liberals) pushed the states resources away from caring for a large amount of patients. 

Furthermore, if you say Reagan was at fault for passing the OBRA of 1981 which did reduce the Federal block grants to state for this purpose, don't forget to note that Tip O'Neill, one of those progressive liberals could have stopped it because the House was still theirs.

Whereas, I have no doubt that modern-day progressives and their spend, spend, spend Keynesian ideology probably earmark more money for this (and everything else), I don't see any of them championing the cause through their actions-- but they do seem to me to want to look the other way at what many conservatives see as crazy behavior. 

 

[XLFD]

I generally disagree with the political rhetoric of Morgan Freeman, but he pointed to a sad fact that is often overlooked, and that I agree with and have agreed with:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

[Willy]

The forensic psychiatrist gives some good advise at the end of this video on how to keep copycat shooters from acting on their urges after a mass shooting. Makes sense to me.

[XLFD]

Good advice, but the media does not follow it.  The shooter becomes a celeb, their history becomes the back story, and the shooted become statistics.  Sensationalism wins the day.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Conservatives, on the other hand, felt that funding mental health institutions was not a good use of tax dollars. Tiger

So is it your contention that a large nameless institution is they best way to deal with the mentally ill?? Its a great way to spend a lot of money to look as though you are doing something. The facts are more the opposite. You teach those who have issues how to deal with them in terms of a society that seems very different from themselves. Most mentally ill people would prefer to feel normal. This can not be done in a closed society. Up until last year I was one of those drawing SS due to mental illness. This is no more the case.

[easymoney]

Maybe with the new health scare coming into affect, there will be money for mental health? I mean, O's taxing everything and everybody to death. Medical device co's, guess there will be no more R&D, it won't be worth the expense. I hear that some where in the bill there's a tax on asperin, I guess cause it's white, and, it works (sarc) that should start a barauge on me, but, I can take it.

In seriousness though, I felt the shootings were the most henious crimes aperson could committ, reminded me of the killer of the kids on the island  from Iceland, and they have very strict gun laws.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for that update and stats X, very revealing. Guido, that was a brave and honest thing to admit, and I can appreciate that you now feel a lot better as a result of new technology treatments/councilors. Sorry, but if my take on this whole scenario isn't more candid and honest, then what do we do? Like other foreign nations outlaw all guns to the public? Look at that Norway incident where over 50 people died, same thing, madness. I hope the present "fogged and smoky" atmosphere in this country changes where mental illnesses are concerned. If not, then this crap can continue and get worse imho. However, I have a feeling that Mr. O and his cronies are going to use this episode to do more harm than good, for politics, and power of course.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

     I have just seen on television where our Liberal and chief is in fact going to use this tragic even to constrict Americans gun rights to not allow the so called assault weapons. The only thing that differs between the so called assault weapon and any standard hunting weapon is the size of the magazine . It does not take a huge leap in ones thought process to see this as a slippery slope from one ban to another to another in the name of making society safer.

     Lets put ourselves into an era long ago about a legendary serial killer back in old England by the name of Jack the Ripper. This many killed who knows how many of the street people in England during the time period of his attacks. The weapons of chose then were simple cutting tools in which he slashed and hacked his way into the history books. Now the English police of the day did not carry weapons like our own do so the playing field was more or less equal. Somehow I don't remember anyone trying to ban a type of knife used in the attacks as more dangerous that any other, nor do I remember reading any papers of the day trying to invoke some new rule to keep its citizens safe. I know some who read this may laugh I chose such a far fetched example of a legendary mad man. But as far as we know this mans motives aside he chose his carnage with the weapon at hand. Groups of men armed with the same weapon would have dispatched him as quickly. 

One armed guard could have dispatched this mentally ill guy in CT. This guy in CT could have done just as much damage only stopping to put a 5 round clip, in as he did with whatever size clip he did use, as law enforcement still had to respond in force of numbers before entering the ugly scene did they not? I know most peoples gut reaction is to do something to prevent such a catastrophe. The first few ideas of doing more to recognize and treat mental illness was brilliant. But not to let a tragedy go to waste. Liberals are instead going to make the first thing they do impede free and innocent Americas right to own and use guns. Automatic weapons are already banned as are cannons or military hardware, although I am sure the bad guys can purchase those at will. They also can Rob steel and kill at will as the proposed ban on semiautomatic guns with large magazines will still be owned by those who wish to break the law.

[Willy]

What's so crazy about all of this is that a criminal  can purchase any type of weapon they desire. Hell, for the right price a suit case nuclear weapon can be bought. There is only one reason for banning guns and we all know what that is.

[Willy]

Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt. In my opinion Morgan is an a_s. He's a foreigner who comes to this Country and tells us what to think, what to do and how this Country should be ran. Go back to where you were spawned Morgan. 

[Willy]

Wouldn't it have been nice for these phoney liberal journalists to question Obama like they do conservatives. These liberal interviewers are not after the truth but are trying to push their own agendas just like that foreigner Piers Morgan. The only thing he can do and not very well is to be a talent judge.