I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.
...
IMvHO,
Will

In my opinion, it's actually too late. A LOT of what anti's want to take away from us was already guaranteed to us by Heller. There are lots of questions still up in the air, and high capacity magazines and semi-auto battle rifles are a couple of them. But to really strip us down to no guns they are going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

The question in my mind now is how much damage can Obama do bypassing Congress.

I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I've often looked at these horrible events and wondered... how many kids are killed in car/bus wrecks on the way to school and back. Yet no one says much about this.

this whole talke of rounding up and sorting out the insane scares the bejesus out of me.

the USSR would routinely drag in a member of the loyal opposition on trumped up charge. they'd subject him to a panel of gov't paid mental health people. they'd rule him insane, even criminally so. they'd summarily asign him to the Glulag in Siberia, for rehabilitation, treatment and the good of Society. if he died from overwork, cold and malnutrition in a few years, well the State was only doing it's job.

same with China with the re-indoctrination of some of the urban elites. they'd be sent to the rural collectives to starve or be re-indoctrinated, whichever came first.

the problem or challenge with the mental health solution is there might not be a perfectly healthy one anywhere on the internet. ya know?

LMAO!

What a girl!

There were more than 1 million children aborted in 2011. Such mass murder is more than horrific, yet no one says much about that, either.

Until we begin to value human life, things are going to continue to happen.

Penny

Instead of being reactive and defensive. Lets go on offence. First offer solutions, here are some of mine:

1) Install hardened doors/locks on all schools with magnetic locks.
2) Since there are so many people afraid to carry, have all teachers wear a belt or small fanny pack at all times with a taser and pepperspray.
3) Have off duty police or retired police or paid security personell stationed at every school. (they have air mashalls on EVERY plane).
4) have CC permitted teachers actually carry in the schools. They have to have the gun ON them at all times and can't lock it in a desk or put it somewhere where a kid could get to it.

To pay for this offer to have a 1% national sales tax on all guns and ammo.

Other questionable options would be to have the school board, a psychiatrist, or a counselor notify the sheriff once a questionable kid reaches 18. Put his name on a no gun buy list. To get it off, he would have to have a psychiatrist recommend removing his name. Schizophrenia, bi-polar, and borderline personality disorders don't show up until late teens or early 20's when these type crimes are committed.

Try to stop bullying in school. Give smart kids just as much praise and reward as an athletic person.

I am, and I'm ready to pay for the civil commitment of the dangerously mentally ill before they kill, even if it means lifetime confinement for some.

Deinstitutionalization, that 50-year-old experiment in social welfare, cost-cutting and European guilt, needs to be tossed for good.

this whole talke of rounding up and sorting out the insane scares the bleep out of me.

Telling society at large that they just have to put up with this kind of psychotic behavior is probably counterproductive. It is going to incense a whole lot of neutral voters.

Will

Which horrifies you the most?

Your guns being thought of as evil, or millions of babies aborted?

And this is supposed to surprise anybody?

] Once you go down the road of "finding solutions" it means that you accept partial responsibility

Penguin's a [bleep] disgrace. Once you go down the road of "finding solutions" it means that you accept partial responsibility for these and every other murder across the country.

Then what are agreeing with P about?

Never mind, I'm sure it's the same hormones rushing through you both.

Penguin's a [bleep] disgrace. Once you go down the road of "finding solutions" it means that you accept partial responsibility for these and every other murder across the country. I didn't have anything to do with any murder and my weapons didn't either. [bleep] the liberals and any politician that wants to appease them or join them. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. I can understand chicks flaking out, but honestly...

Instead of being reactive and defensive. Lets go on offence. First offer solutions, here are some of mine:

1) Install hardened doors/locks on all schools with magnetic locks.
2) Since there are so many people afraid to carry, have all teachers wear a belt or small fanny pack at all times with a taser and pepperspray.
3) Have off duty police or retired police or paid security personell stationed at every school. (they have air mashalls on EVERY plane).
4) have CC permitted teachers actually carry in the schools. They have to have the gun ON them at all times and can't lock it in a desk or put it somewhere where a kid could get to it.

To pay for this offer to have a 1% national sales tax on all guns and ammo.

Other questionable options would be to have the school board, a psychiatrist, or a counselor notify the sheriff once a questionable kid reaches 18. Put his name on a no gun buy list. To get it off, he would have to have a psychiatrist recommend removing his name. Schizophrenia, bi-polar, and borderline personality disorders don't show up until late teens or early 20's when these type crimes are committed.

Try to stop bullying in school. Give smart kids just as much praise and reward as an athletic person.

Not sure what your point is, but the tactic of shooting from the lip is not going to make people think, "Gee, he's got a good point."

Disagree with Penguin if you wish, but post something as well thought-out and articulate as he did, and then others will be able to ponder your point of view.

Penny

One thing I do know is that we need to actively engage in this conversation with the other side, if we fail to do so we will lose out big.

LMAO!

Really

Penguin is actually a very thoughtful and intelligent person. And you need to simmer down a little and understand that he is NOT presenting you with a false choice.

And since you're a little too steamed to understand what that means without a little explanation: we do not have to choose between fighting to protect our second amendment rights on the one hand, and protecting ourselves from the predatory behavior of the really, dangerously mentally ill people who wander among us on the other.

We can do both things, and I agree with Penguin that it's a mistake for anyone to put their entire focus on the one thing.

I'm not meaning to be flippant rost495, but this is exactly the kind of argument I was speaking to. It isn't going to work this time.

Why is flying in a plane, riding in a car, being killed by a meteor or any of these other things different? Why do they not apply in the slightest?

Because all of those other deaths are ones that take place as accidents while going about the business of partaking in modern life. You have to fly, drive, and walk around in this world to make a living.

The is nothing accidental about a 20 year old breaking into a grade school and shooting up a classroom of 8 year olds. There is nothing inherently mandatory about having to take the risk of outwitting a crazed gunman in your local grade school.

These are exactly the arguments I say will not work this time. Telling society at large that they just have to put up with this kind of psychotic behavior is probably counterproductive. It is going to incense a whole lot of neutral voters.

Will

Frankly, I don't see a correlation between an ardent defense of the 2A and the fact PC and BIG government have once again restrained the medical profession to deal with these kooks. If the guy would have hijacked a gasoline tanker and driven into the school and killed EVERYBODY, would you have posted a similar thread on the evils of fossil fuels?....

Sorry you feel that way Ethan. But is entirely your right to do so.

But I also have the right to my views. I believe real men work to solve problems. Real men hold things together when those around them succombe to emotion and lambast anything and everything that is opposed to them.

Shaking your fist and shouting out what the 2nd Amendment means probably won't do much good right now.

Again and again we have seen maniacs go into schools and take the lives of those who are in society's watch and care. Like it or not society is going to force us to roll up our sleeves and get to work on finding a way to minimize these tragedies. I am merely pointing out that it does no good to shout out what the 2nd means and insist that mental illness is the real culprit if we also refuse to grapple with how mental illness is treated in this nation.

Will

Seriously, can't you just trade your membership here in for one on the Dem Underground or someplace else you'll be happier? I mean, I for one am sick and tired of you showing up once in awhile and pontificating from on high about healthcare, taxes, and now this. If you want to surrender your guns, just go do it, but leave the rest of us alone.

You have no idea what Penguin said. You have no real ideas period, just an obsessive/compulsive need to rant ignorance.

He didn't once say he was retreating. He was offering another tactic that is far more realistic, under the present circumstances. You...YOU are the best example of what the MSM targets so successfully in their propaganda campaigns.

I'm willing to fight and dies for my 2A rights, but it doesn't mean I'll do it dumb.

Frankly, I don't see a correlation between an ardent defense of the 2A and the fact PC and BIG government have once again restrained the medical profession to deal with these kooks. If the guy would have hijacked a gasoline tanker and driven into the school and killed EVERYBODY, would you have posted a similar thread on the evils of fossil fuels?....

gun control wouldn't prevent any of this... prevention starts long before the scenario even plays out...

addressing what made this angry at the world, mentally ill losers picking up the gun and deciding to end it all, after they got their 15 minutes of Andy Warhol fame, by killing a bunch of innocent people.. just to get their name in the headlines...

and our liberal main stream media is standing by to accommodate them, both to pump up their ratings with the 'shock factor' they knew sells so well.. and them be opportunists to take advantage of another tragedy to promote their liberal political agendas...

if they aren't to blame they certain contributed to the facts each time one of these public shootings occur...


yet meanwhile in the middle east, some radical Muslim dirtbag decides to blow himself up in a school or mosque, or crowded market square.... the news covers that for about 30 seconds and then moves on to something else... regardless of how many women, children, grandmas etc get killed...

anyone else see something grossly wrong with this picture????

Why not tell us what P meant when he said the 2A won't save us now?

There is all sorts of evidence that more guns equal less crime

It is my opinion that we are reaching the point where society at large is going to force us to separate these maniacs from weapons a lot better than we have been able to accomplish thus far.

Will

What alarms me with the notion I think you're proposing is who will define "mental illness" and the degree's of such who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms.

It is my opinion that we are reaching the point where society at large is going to force us to separate these maniacs from weapons a lot better than we have been able to accomplish thus far.

No need for that. I'll do it myself.

What I meant is this: The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. And this entity has shown itself to be a very political animal. There have been decisions handed down from this august body that would make your head spin in terms of what the constitution says and how they interpret it. They have also made politically expedient decisions that would make your skin crawl in their callous disregard for human decency and dignity.

Depending on what the 2nd says or how this particular group of justices interpret it is fool's gold.

In the long run the SC will go toward what the majority of the citizenry believes, or at least what they will tolerate. The witch's cocktail of psychotic individuals having access to lethal weapons has shown itself to be one with catastrophic consequences. It is my opinion that we are reaching the point where society at large is going to force us to separate these maniacs from weapons a lot better than we have been able to accomplish thus far.

Will

I do believe that a whole lot of what we consider gun rights have been saved for a good long while. A whole lot of what we consider gun rights is not. The right to self protection and whatnot is probably safe. As is the right to manually operated hunting weapons. Everything else? Wouldn't bet on it.
...
Will

Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place.
Will

Mass murders have been around a lot longer than health insurance....

You have no idea what Penguin said. You have no real ideas period, just an obsessive/compulsive need to rant ignorance.

He didn't once say he was retreating. He was offering another tactic that is far more realistic, under the present circumstances. You...YOU are the best example of what the MSM targets so successfully in their propaganda campaigns.

I'm willing to fight and die for my 2A rights, but it doesn't mean I'll do it dumb.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

The school on CT was locked and the shooter had to break in.

My understanding is many places have school entrances that resemble a TSA station at an airport.

Your point?? I guess it's to tolerate mass murder, because it's been here so long.

Let's focus on stopping the nuts and keep them out of schools.

No, the supreme court should uphold the constitution as written. That could certainly change with more O picks on the court, but it won't be due to what the founders wrote/thought....

Facts ...

1) The Connecticut shooting is a game changer.

2) The antis will seek a solution and the second won't prevent this from happening.

The only question is how much the game changes.

Should. A big word in this case.

Should the SC have engaged in decades of fence straddling on the issue of slavery? Should this group have overturned child labor laws based on a company owner's right to employ who he chose and engage in contract with whomever he wished? Have you read some of the skin crawling decisions the SC has handed down over the years?

Do you really want to have a discussion on what the Supreme Court should do?

I am merely giving one man's opinion on the landscape as I see it now. Should has nothing to do with it.

Will

I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

But we have a problem in that the overwhelming majority of the cross section of this site (and I'm guessing of the ardent gun owners in general) have shown an outspoken and even militant disdain for government mandated health care.

Should. A big word in this case.

Should the SC have engaged in decades of fence straddling on the issue of slavery? Should this group have overturned child labor laws based on a company owner's right to employ who he chose and engage in contract with whomever he wished? Have you read some of the skin crawling decisions the SC has handed down over the years?

Do you really want to have a discussion on what the Supreme Court should do?

I am merely giving one man's opinion on the landscape as I see it now. Should has nothing to do with it.

Will

Thanks for finally self-identifying. I've actually agreed with you on some things in the past. On this, you're flat-out wrong and for some reason, others are listening to you. Seriously, just go turn your guns in at some police station or something.

EE

I agree with some of what you just said. My only real disagreement is with the notion we aren't responsible for what happened. We as a nation of individuals united become responsible for many things. My guns and yours most assuredly aren't responsible for anything evil.

If I got a bit pizzy in my response to you I apologize. I tend to do that a bit.

We all now need to shed old slogans and re-group. Shouting at each other (I'm just as guilty) isn't going to save our rights. Finding a new tactic that is more PC and socially acceptable that shoves our argument in the other side's face intelligently and puts them on the defensive with media acumen is something we need to do. Change the argument from guns to sanity and insanity.

Sorry for getting all nutted up.

It is about this: Posturing and making repeated defenses of the 2nd Amendment in the same ways will not work this time.

I mentioned mental illness because I have seen that very issue brought up as the root cause of the shooting. And for my money that is probably a hell of a lot closer than most guesses. But we have a problem in that the overwhelming majority of the cross section of this site (and I'm guessing of the ardent gun owners in general) have shown an outspoken and even militant disdain for government mandated health care.

Any and all government mandated health care. And let's face it, to tackle the issue of mental illness and protecting society from them we are talking about government intervention and government taking custody in many cases of the mentally ill. You have the costs of filtering them out of the populace. You have the costs of providing food and care for them. You have the costs of psychological evaluation and psychiatric care for them.

And our employee based health care does not cover this in many cases. And the mentally ill aren't going to disappear when mom or dad lose their job.

Food for thought.

Will

Will, just what would you define and consider as "sensible" gun regulations?

Other than regualting a maximum magazine capacity I can't think of any regulation that could have prevented or minimized what happened at Sandy Hook. Even with a limited magazine size regulation we are talking about just few extra seconds to put another magazine in. Could it have saved one person? Maybe, maybe not.

One of the things I know from talking to people who know very little about guns is that most of them are completely clueless as to just how regulated the use firearms currently are. Regulations vary from state to state and even city to city.

One thing I do know is that we need to actively engage in this conversation with the other side, if we fail to do so we will lose out big.

That's ignored by those who think it's a simple matter of sorting out "normal" and "nut jobs".

Even if you don't give a rat's azz about the rights of your fellow Americans who happen to have a mental illness, the numbers would be mind boggling, and the cost/benefit miniscule.

As to the definition of mental illness, the standard authority is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, DSM IV, soon to be DSM V. It contains probably a couple of hundred different diagnostic categories. Think you know what mental illness is and is not? Think it only means raving nut jobs? Think again, and give DSM a look. You might be surprised, and you might even find yourself in there. Not directed at anybody in particular, but you might find that a certain type of counseling or a prescription you've received at some point could have a DSM coding. Bingo, you have a "history of mental illness."

Paul

The mag limits are a joke too. Go google IPSC mag change from an AMU shooter.... I doesn't take me seconds to change an AR mag either.

The sensible gun regs are the ones we already have.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce legislation in the next Congress to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, his office told The Huffington Post on Monday.

That's funny. You know metally ill people drive cars that kill people. The right to drive cars is not garanteed by the constitution and yet everyone is still driving cars with no talk of outlawing them. Cars however kill more people every year than do guns. I think you guys need to stop listening to the BS and writing letters to your congress men. The benfit of owning guns far out weighs what we would be lead to believe we would gain by giving them up. If you're ready to become a slave turn them in.

As to the hand-wringing about mental illness...wtf? Mental illness has existed since time immemorial.

Where did Penguin say we need to have guns taken away?

That's ignored by those who think it's a simple matter of sorting out "normal" and "nut jobs".

Even if you don't give a rat's azz about the rights of your fellow Americans who happen to have a mental illness, the numbers would be mind boggling, and the cost/benefit miniscule.

As to the definition of mental illness, the standard authority is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, DSM IV, soon to be DSM V. It contains probably a couple of hundred different diagnostic categories. Think you know what mental illness is and is not? Think it only means raving nut jobs? Think again, and give DSM a look. You might be surprised, and you might even find yourself in there. Not directed at anybody in particular, but you might find that a certain type of counseling or a prescription you've received at some point could have a DSM coding. Bingo, you have a "history of mental illness."

Paul

As to the hand-wringing about mental illness...wtf? Mental illness has existed since time immemorial. It only gets worse when people are put under pressure. The modern world and the shape our country is in is a huge stressor. There is no test or quiz that will identify people who are dangerous. The suspect supposedly broke all sorts of laws to do what he did.

That's my point. "Mental illness" is so broad where does one begin to address who and who shouldn't have guns. Depression is a mental illness. Alcoholism is a form of mental illness.....

It's only recently (the past 50 years or so) that most of the mentally ill haven't been locked up.

I am Adam Lanza�s Mother
It's time to talk about mental illness
Liza Long


Friday�s horrific national tragedy�the murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in New Town, Connecticut�has ignited a new discussion on violence in America. In kitchens and coffee shops across the country, we tearfully debate the many faces of violence in America: gun culture, media violence, lack of mental health services, overt and covert wars abroad, religion, politics and the way we raise our children. Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it�s easy to talk about guns. But it�s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

�I can wear these pants,� he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

�They are navy blue,� I told him. �Your school�s dress code says black or khaki pants only.�

�They told me I could wear these,� he insisted. �You�re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!�

�You can�t wear whatever pants you want to,� I said, my tone affable, reasonable. �And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You�re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.�

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan�they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn�t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don�t know what�s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He�s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he�s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He�s in a good mood most of the time. But when he�s not, watch out. And it�s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district�s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can�t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, �Look, Mom, I�m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?�

�No way,� I told him. �You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.�

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. �Then I�m going to kill myself,� he said. �I�m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.�

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

�Where are you taking me?� he said, suddenly worried. �Where are we going?�

�You know where we are going,� I replied.

�No! You can�t do that to me! You�re sending me to hell! You�re sending me straight to hell!�

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. �Call the police,� I said. �Hurry.�

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn�t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I�m still stronger than he is, but I won�t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork��Were there any difficulties with� at what age did your child� were there any problems with.. has your child ever experienced.. does your child have��

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You�ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying�that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, �I hate you. And I�m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.�

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I�ve heard those promises for years. I don�t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, �What are your expectations for treatment?� I wrote, �I need help.�

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza�s mother. I am Dylan Klebold�s and Eric Harris�s mother. I am James Holmes�s mother. I am Jared Loughner�s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho�s mother. And these boys�and their mothers�need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it�s easy to talk about guns. But it�s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son�s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. �If he�s back in the system, they�ll create a paper trail,� he said. �That�s the only way you�re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you�ve got charges.�

I don�t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael�s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn�t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise�in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill�Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation�s largest treatment centers in 2011.

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, �Something must be done.�

I agree that something must be done. It�s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That�s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

You start by finding out which mental illnesses/syndromes are a marker for violent behavior and more specifically for rampage violence. I'm guessing that narrows the field substantially.

Sure it is hard, evidence based work. It is messy and complex. It will take time. We have to figure out how to keep lunatics and lethal weapons separated better. I am not sure that there are a hell of a lot of people out there willing to just accept this as a 'price for our freedoms'.

I just finished a very well done article on the subject of end cost shifting done by a father of a young daughter who is mad as hell over the lack of movement on this issue. He advocates adding a tax to gun ownership to cover the costs of, in his works, the "mayhem" associated with our "hobby".

If it wouldn't send chills down your spine I don't know what would.

Will

I'm all for the 2nd ammendment. But we don't need AK 47's, SKS's,
and the non so called Assault rifles, to hunt with.
You want to hunt with a SAR use a Browning, Remington, are any other SA hunting rifle, and I don't mean the Assault rifle type.
If your so afraid of the SHTF don't worry there will be lots of Assault Rifles out there and they'll be up dated with all the bells and whistles.
If your a hunter then teach your childern to hunt not to slaughter the game.
For house defence a shootgun, wheel gun, or 1911. If you need more then 6, or 7 rounds. YOUR OUT NUMBERED TO START WITH.
It's not the weapon it's the A-HOLE behind the weapon...

I agree, it is why we need to actively engage in this conversation with the other side. Like or not, magazine capacity is going to be debated by Congress.

Gun Control Legislation From Frank ...azines Post-Sandy Hook - Huffington Post

Read it yourself and then you can report to me what it says. Later.

I have read it several times. It says that you're wrong and you should should step back and learn before shouting, screaming and acting like a pre-teen that ran out of Clearasil.

You're welcome for the Cliff notes.

Will, close your eyes, and embrace the force. Your left wing world view is blinding your ability to think straight.

What puzzles me most is...you have to go through a security check point and metal detector to go into a court house. You have to go through the same thing to board a plane. In both places they also have armed guards.

Not only do schools not allow someone to be armed, they leave the doors wide open to the world.

When the criminally insane use weapons of any kind to kill kids especially, the masses will seek to find cause.

Incidents like this have been happening for years. The only thing that changes is the intensity and number of people murdered. They will continue to grow until

According to Rush today, the worst mass murder at a school happened in 1927 and the murderer used dynamite. miles

What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to purchase dynamite these days?

I would argue that it is not my left wing view of the world that you take issue with. It is more that you, like many here, don't wish to see the world as it actually is. IOW I would argue that I am telling you about the real world outside this echo chamber and it is a bitter pill.

I'm just telling you that this is a game changer.

Body bags coming out of an elementary school are going to render all of these specious arguments moot. Not even the most disinterested of citizens is going to ignore this one. I honestly don't believe that telling them to buck up and accept elementary school shootings as the price of freedom is going to get us very far.

MOF it will end up giving those more interested in finding a way to disarm the nation than finding a way to stop school rampages some very good sound clips to sway public opinion even further away from us. It makes us all look like lunatics.

Will

I'm afraid that argument would be used against us. The left will say that since dynamite is very difficult to obtain and we haven't had an epidemic of dynamiting of schools in almost 100 years that regulation and restrictions work.

you know the answer Scott. Nothing.

There is no political capital to be made tilting at that windmill.

And our employee based health care does not cover this in many cases.

There you go Ace. I don't even need to formulate a reply just point at who you're partnered up with.

An average of 5 children die a day in the country from neglect/abuse, we'll be past the 20 that died in school on Friday come tomorrow.

5 times 365 is a bunch, what is being done about that?

I believe real men work to solve problems. Real men hold things together when those around them succombe to emotion and lambast anything and everything that is opposed to them.

make it near certain there will be draconian restrictions if not a complete ban on all semi-auto firearms.
===============

laffin'!

I have read it several times. It says that you're wrong and you should should step back and learn before shouting, screaming and acting like a pre-teen that ran out of Clearasil.

You're welcome for the Cliff notes.

..... Once you go down the road of "finding solutions" it means that you accept partial responsibility for these and every other murder across the country. I didn't have anything to do with any murder and my weapons didn't either. [bleep] the liberals and any politician that wants to appease them or join them. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. .....

BS! I got a solution:

Stop forcing teachers to work in these "Gun Free Zones"
And restore their right choose to protect themselves and their students instead of having to act as human shields!!!

Do you really think having teachers packing their AR under her desk is a serious option? Really? More guns is not the answer to this problem.

Of course, he didn't. I read this whole thread, and I agree with Will's main point about the defenses we have used in the past will not be effective this time. He outlined the the reasons very well.

But.......... focusing on mental health as being even PART of a solution is NOT a winner.Prior to the discovery of certain type drugs in the late 'fifties, 75% of hospital beds in the U.S. were occupied by mental patients.

Think about it......... 3 of each 4 beds had a mental patient in it.Now, that percentage is moving freely among us.We cant lock them back up.

The targets must be hardened.And rapid response to shooters - apart from 911 - must be formulated.

Each local school district will need to apply solutions available to them.In many cases, just not making schools a gun-free zone is all it would take.

In areas where school employees are averse to taking responsibility for the safety of themselves and the children in their care, armed security personel might be the only answer.

Me............ I'd homeschool my kids rather than depend on the cops, regardless of the type.

I'm afraid this incident was the final impetus to turn public opinion greatly against us. Politicians to be successful must obey public opinion and they will. Unfortunately, with BHO in the drivers seat, a Democrat Senate, and a soon to be majority liberal SCOTUS there is not a lot we can do about it.

This was the second worse event of 2012.

Look for European/Australian style gun laws in the near future.

I don't think you know very much about teachers, especially elementary teachers!..//...Do you really think having teachers packing their AR under her desk is a serious option? Really? More guns is not the answer to this problem.

I don't think you know very much about teachers, especially elementary teachers!

Most are 100% dedicated to their students and very few would if they could pack a gun into the classroom. The vast majority of elementary teachers are females and most are not the gun toting type, thank god!

Do you really think having teachers packing their AR under her desk is a serious option? Really? More guns is not the answer to this problem.

More guns is not the answer to this problem.

Explain how the keynian is going to secure a majority in the USSC.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is.


Will

As was stated in the OP the turnout of the MI into the streets was a cost cutting measure. That was promoted by the smaller gov. lower tax crowd such as yourself. It was followed by the private insurance industry offering med insurance policies without mental health coverage. So how in the hell do you blame the gov for following your wishes? For every shortcoming of society that is a direct outcome due to your wishes you end up trying to wash off your own hands.

49 states and the D of C require mental health coverage provisions in health insurance contracts.

An average of 5 children die a day in the country from neglect/abuse, we'll be past the 20 that died in school on Friday come tomorrow.

5 times 365 is a bunch, what is being done about that?

Make no mistake, regardless of the debate and speculation about violence, guns, mental illness, etc., there will be major consequences, intended and unintended.

This is shaping up to be a major battle in the ongoing culture war, perhaps the greatest we have seen to date.

Paul

If one doesn't accept that there is an inherent risk in life and that the risk of gun ownership by millions and millions of people is considerably less than car ownership, we will end up trading rights for inferred safety.

How many 6 year old's died last year in car accidents?

How many due to crazy people with a gun?

Giving the government authority to determine who is normal and who is not, is as dangerous as giving them authority to determine which guns are safer.


Keep in mind that the rifle used by the Norwegian killer, who murdered 3 TIMES as many people as at Sandy Hook, was a legal rifle under the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban.

If one doesn't accept that there is an inherent risk in life and that the risk of gun ownership by millions and millions of people is considerably less than car ownership, we will end up trading rights for inferred safety.

I saw the post by BarryC too Jorge. I didn't respond because I didn't think it deserved one. Saying that the majority of states require mental illness coverage and that is that was so much of a reach I didn't think it would gain traction.

It is about this: Posturing and making repeated defenses of the 2nd Amendment in the same ways will not work this time.

I mentioned mental illness because I have seen that very issue brought up as the root cause of the shooting. And for my money that is probably a hell of a lot closer than most guesses. But we have a problem in that the overwhelming majority of the cross section of this site (and I'm guessing of the ardent gun owners in general) have shown an outspoken and even militant disdain for government mandated health care.

Any and all government mandated health care. And let's face it, to tackle the issue of mental illness and protecting society from them we are talking about government intervention and government taking custody in many cases of the mentally ill. You have the costs of filtering them out of the populace. You have the costs of providing food and care for them. You have the costs of psychological evaluation and psychiatric care for them.

And our employee based health care does not cover this in many cases. And the mentally ill aren't going to disappear when mom or dad lose their job.

Food for thought.

Will

Guns allow people to save more lives than are taken using them.

Firearms defend our other freedoms. We let them go, we must accept that we are also, ultimately, surrendering the rest of them.

Prior to Ronald Reagan, the homeless street people in Washington DC were picked up by the police and taken to St. Elizabeth�s Hospital for observation and treatment; if they were deemed to be mentally ill or a threat to themselves or, others, they were kept indefinitely. This generally occurred around the country with the bills being picked up by local governments, aided by Federal grants. Reagan cut local grants and these people were released to the streets, where they now reside. Walking through downtown areas in many cities, you see homeless people (generally with mental illnesses) huddled in corners. Generally, they are non-violent, but occasionally they are. In the mid-1990�s, I saw a woman sleeping on a bus stop bench in a snowstorm beneath my DOT office window � the next day, she was found frozen to death, still on the bench.

Just curious, what did you do for the woman as you saw her freezing to death from your government office window?

I still think we need to shift the focus of the public discourse to mental health.

We have to get started on the path of figuring out how to keep the potentially explosive maniac from getting his hands on weapons. They'll end up bringing the house down on us if we don't.

Will

At face value that sounds good but every compromise that I can think of results in a solution that's worse than the problem.

What's an assault rifle?

I can tell you things that are pissing me off about these shootings though. I am sick and damned tired of hearing about some lunatic going off of his meds and a few weeks later killing a bunch of people followed often by himself.

But it got better when Clinton reinstated the grants right? And Obama expanded them, right?
Just curious, what did you do for the woman as you saw her freezing to death from your government office window?

You're sick and tired of it, turn off the news. Mass-shootings are on the decline, but they are all over the media constantly. That's part of their plan. Bombard you with it.

All concessions are a bad one, less the US Military, law enforcement, and Federal agents agree to make the same concession. Otherwise the second amendment cannot be effective.

Line in the sand?

Concede one thing, they will force you to do so again.

That's a damned callous attitude, and is all too typical of what I've observed on this site since these shootings. 2A at all costs - the hell with the victims.

That's a damned callous attitude, and is all too typical of what I've observed on this site since these shootings. 2A at all costs - the hell with the victims.

"None of this is as simple as it may appear at first glance."

Actually, it is.

Require individuals to assume responsibility for their own safety. Forbid governmental entities from interfering with the individuals efforts in that direction.

Require LOCAL governmental agencies and LOCAL elected officials to provide for the safety of minors in their care and under their supervision , with appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

Sounds simple to me.

The 2A has no victims.

The anti-gunners started before we had any details. They had the bill drafted waiting on a crisis. Don't like it, I don't care, but the facts are what they are. Defend your freedom or let it erode.

Defend my freedom over the bodies of 20 children? I think not. That price is too high.

Defend my freedom over the bodies of 20 children? I think not. That price is too high.

Then you're a lost cause...freedom costs much more than 20 people. Go to China and see how many bodies the alternative yields.

Trying to couple abortion with what happened in Conn. is ridiculous.

I disagree. It's far beyond ridiculous. Only religious "kooks" would attempt to connect those two events.

Giving the government authority to determine who is normal and who is not, is as dangerous....................

"Just think about the situation James Holmes' psychiatrist found herself in."

It will be interesting to hear the facts that come out during the trial. This is a case where a previously identified mentally unstable person legally purchased weapons and committed mass murder. It's very disturbing but what will come of it and if there is a reasonable solution or protocol in cases like this ... I have no idea.

Very tough question fish head.

No good answers. Only less bad ones. I think some on this site see this as just another mass shooting and the status quo will survive intact. Others, like myself, see this as a situation where we are going to see change and the choice is whether we can force concessions from someone other than just us or just draw a line and get run over.

I can tell you things that are pissing me off about these shootings though. I am sick and damned tired of hearing about some lunatic going off of his meds and a few weeks later killing a bunch of people followed often by himself. I've had it up to here with hearing of someone commit a mass killing who shouldn't have passed a background check in the first place but the pertinent information was not passed on to the federal data base. I am completely fed up with some maniac gaining access to a gun or rifle that should have been under lock and key and wasn't. I feel my blood pressure sky rocket every time I hear about some crazed gunman setting off alarm bells with someone who had the ability to get them under supervision only they took a powder and let him go.

These are the kinds of things that are going to have to stop and that list is the tip of the iceberg. I'm tired of hearing about the rights of these raving lunatics. God damn it those people who are being made into human sausage had rights too! It is high time we start talking about someone besides me having to do all the giving.

Will

Will (Penguin) is well-known to most of us here and is no leftist. He's also one of the more conversant gentlemen on the notion and mechanics of financial subjection.

How arguments get twisted into straw men on the internet never ceases to amaze me.

That being said, my position, already stated, is that we will see more and more of these shootings as our society continues to slide into decadence and painfully lower standards of living, as will happen. Giving up our gun rights solves nothing.

You're just shoveling the same shizzle that was shoveled during the first ban. Once again, what are your qualifications to speak on the mental health issue? How many black rifles do you own? Do you like them?

It's very easy to sell somebody else's rights down the river.

Sorry Will, you're just another liberal. I used to think different, but I was wrong.

Why aren't you railing at your Senators and Congressperson about the need to get rid of the Gun Free School Zones and their inherent pools of helpless victims?

I honestly don't give a flying [bleep] what your opinion of me is. I mean that.

You have spouted off again and again calling me all manner of names. You have added not one particle of substance to this entire thread. You have presented a side of the gun owning community that is, to be blunt, an embarrassment to a hell of a lot of us.

I am quite willing to see the mentally disturbed undergo a hell of a lot more scrutiny than they currently do. And I am willing to see those deemed to be a danger to society locked up BEFORE they go on a rampage. I'll go further and tell you right now that I am completely onboard with locking up those who are borderline cases who refuse to take their meds.

Make of it what you will big boy. Spout off and call me a commie if you wish. I for one am sick of taking it on the chin for these lunatics.

Will

Will (Penguin) is well-known to most of us here and is no leftist. He's also one of the more conversant gentlemen on the notion and mechanics of financial subjection.

Because to be quite honest I am not in the least convinced this will address the problem.

When dealing with 6 year olds? Maybe we could trust some of these grandmas who teach to be able to keep track of a weapon. To shoot back at a psychotic young male who is going door to door killing young children? Seriously?

And just what are you going to do when you start talking about arming these teachers in anything over grade school? Do you actually remember back when you were 17 and full of piss and vinegar? Are you seriously telling me you think that most teachers wouldn't be subject to having these weapons taken away from them? Do you honestly believe most of them could or would draw a pistol and kill an unarmed school kid to retain possession of it?

A hell of a lot of schools in this nation are smack dab in the middle of what amount to war zones. They have to have security like Fort Knox just to keep the gang wars outside their doors.

I think armed guards are a lot better bets. But even then you are looking at having to make some serious changes on entrances to be effective. Keeping armed lunatics out is not as simple as putting up a metal detector and posting an armed guard beside it.

Will

Because to be quite honest I am not in the least convinced this will address the problem. IMO because like most libs you are perpetually confused and not smart enough to look to those who know more than you to help your with problems beyond your ken.

When dealing with 6 year olds? Maybe we could trust some of these grandmas who teach to be able to keep track of a weapon. To shoot back at a psychotic young male who is going door to door killing young children? Seriously? This crap came straight off of some Communist site. Some sort of Progressive talking points. If a "Grandma" as you put it so eloquently, can handle a weapon and has been trained in its use, I have no problem with her having it with her at school. Whether or not she can successfully defend herself and others hopefully will never be put to the test because even the insane are less likely to attack places where people have the means of defense. Why do you think they pick out schools to attack? Certainly Grandma will be better off with her gun to ward off the young psycho than attempting to hit him with her trusty Ruler. If you spent more time reading pro-gun stuff than you evidently do memorizing rabid liberal talking points, you'd know that lots of old people successfully defend themselves literally all the time, against attacks from those younger and in better physical condition than themselves. That's one of the reasons the Single Action Army is called the "Peacemaker".

And just what are you going to do when you start talking about arming these teachers in anything over grade school? Do you actually remember back when you were 17 and full of piss and vinegar? Are you seriously telling me you think that most teachers wouldn't be subject to having these weapons taken away from them? Do you honestly believe most of them could or would draw a pistol and kill an unarmed school kid to retain possession of it? I don't think that's a consideration in most places and quite frankly, if you've got old folks who are infirm teaching kids that are wont to attack them at any time, you're a damned poor School Administrator. If kids such as these would attack somebody for their gun, they'd do the same for their wallet or their Nikes or whatever. If the kids is capable of taking the gun away from you and using it against somebody then you have to do what you have to do. I don't know what shixthole you live in, but that ain't a concern around here and if it was, we'd address it somehow.

A hell of a lot of schools in this nation are smack dab in the middle of what amount to war zones. They have to have security like Fort Knox just to keep the gang wars outside their doors.

You're talking about something that is far removed even though somewhat related, from the current discussion. Those conditions have existed for a long time and are a separate issue.

I think armed guards are a lot better bets. But even then you are looking at having to make some serious changes on entrances to be effective. Keeping armed lunatics out is not as simple as putting up a metal detector and posting an armed guard beside it.

You want armed guards stationed at your kid's school? Aren't you always harping about fiscal responsibility? Where is the money coming from? Cops at every door and scanners, etc. are just what we don't need. A few people already trained who want to carry at school are what we need. Nobody ever knows who is carrying and who isn't and if a bad guy starts shooting the casualties will be far lessened. See the Pearl River shooting.

Will

You want to know why I view you leftist?
Because you won't accept the risks inherent with personal liberty. A lot of Americans can't wrap their head around that.

You view the govt as being necessary to our control. You expect the govt to be the solution, not personal responsibility.

You want to point a finger and find a solution? Look in the mirror FIRST, and don't pretend to be doing anyone a favor by eroding the fundamental right we have in this country 2A that distinguishes us from the dictatorships and communist countries elsewhere.

LOL! I can almost hear the slurping over the net!

Penguin is one of the most leftist members here (besides you, Jeff). Anytime there is an argument over some supposed failure of the markets, Will is johnny-on-the-spot to suggest the Gov't step in and "fix" things. Healthcare? Well, look at what we have in this thread - Will suggesting that Gov't needs to lock up weird kids. Guns? Will is more than ready to roll over and turn in MY Colt!

LO [bleep] L!

Spot on. Penguin is also an arrogant sumbeach who disdains the fire mostly but cruises in and makes on high pronouncements on things that have already been roundly discussed.

Risks inherent in personal liberty? I would venture to say that the vast majority of responsible gun owners will refuse to accept another "risk" like last weeks tragedy in order to justify the "liberty" to own an assault rifle.

Go away, you're an embarrassment.

Start your own thread so that you and a few others can pat each other on the backs and tell each other that if we just had the 'nads to start arming the grandmas who teaches grade school it would all be solved. Go convince yourselves that this shooting is just like all the other previous ones and it will all blow over in a week or two. Call everyone who disagrees with your methods a commie or a socialist or whatever the hell it is you're inclined.

You are adding nothing to the conversation here though. And I have heard from enough people in PMs and emails to convince me that there are more people around here that agree with me than with you.

Will

PS: BTW congrats Ethan you have just become the very first user I have ever put on ignore. You bring nothing to the table but insults and bullshit and to be honest you have become too boring to listen to any more.

common sense

nothing wrong with the NRA � it is dummies like you posting on websites � talking outrage and anger at semi-auto weapons. You are stupid and expect the cops and feds to protect you and guarantee you and your family safety. I own semi-auto guns and will protect my right to do so � I do not expect the cops and feds to keep my family safe � particularly from criminals and whackos like adam lanza. They are out there � they live in your neighborhood � they shop at your stores and attend your churches � all places where any whacko can take an illegally obtained weapon and shoot the hell out of you and your family. No thanks....I am an American � I am self sufficient � I have friends and neighbors that are like me and we watch out for each other...we respect and obey the law � but do not expect it to be a magical womb in which we will be protected from all evil. Wake up you weak minded people and look at the world in which we live. An armed American is a citizen, an unarmed American is a subject � and you will be subject to all manner of abuse and assault. Wake up and stand up for your rights � don't allow these people to die in vain...get mad and tell your politicians to get our mental health establishments in order, strengthen gun laws against criminals and the mentally ill, educate our people and teach them how to be self sufficient � so they can rely on themselves when evil does strike. The Oregon Mall Shooter only got 3 people � because a citizen pulled their legally obtained and carried weapon on him. Upon seeing that, the shooter shot himself � otherwise, he would have continued shooting innocent people. Wake up and protect yourself and those around you � be an American Citizen and stop being a bunch of dumb sheeple!

December 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse | Reply

Risks inherent in personal liberty? I would venture to say that the vast majority of responsible gun owners will refuse to accept another "risk" like last weeks tragedy in order to justify the "liberty" to own an assault rifle.

Naw, I'm gonna keep refuting the leftist garbage that you're spouting here Will. Be advised that I'll be watching for you to post from now on so I can spot any inaccuracy and refute it. Thanks for putting me on Ignore so that I won't have to respond to inanities like the above slam at grandmothers. Despite your disrespect, most of them are gutsier than you.

You're the typical dumb, misinformed, proudly ignorant "gun owner" that your pal 270 here thinks is representative. God help us all if he's right.

Feeling left out 270 Mag guy.
Check out #2 REAL CLOSELY-

1) This is not about freedom to have firearms for recreational use. This is about an agenda of global disarmament. They desire to subjugate us physically, as they have already done financially. They will not give up, nor must we.
2) Freedoms have a price. If you cannot accept risk as a byproduct of personal freedom, and you cannot reason to that end, then please turn in your car keys and await directions to your nearest railcar for relocation.
3) To the leftists, this is not about the children's safety, and therefore it should not be about that for us either. See above.

EE,

Your approach simply can't and won't work for several reasons. The reality of our present culture is the impediment.Do you really live where your location is? No offense, but if you do, it must be a strange place or your worldview is colored by too much teevee. Seriously.

The vast majority of teachers are far left and are opposed to any gun ownership in the private sector. They wouldn't allow guns in schools.I will concede that if you have to characterize teachers as a group, you would say that they are liberals. But that's about as narrow-minded as characterizing black folks as a group as criminals. There are lots of teachers that are conservative and lots of them that are pro gun. I can back this up with experience in the schools from top to bottom, as a parent with two children currently in school and with a wife who has worked for the schools for a quarter century. I cannot speak to Montana or Nevada, but I was under the impression that the area of Nevada you cite and most of Montana was pro gun if not conservative. Teachers are not always a reflection of their communities, but most of the time there is a positive correlation to that effect.

The vast majority of school aged children are left of center to far left from the NEA indoctrination they are spoon fed through their teachers. They dislike guns in general, because they're taught to and wouldn't allow teacher to "tote" them..."tote" is one of the catch words on the left...Again, are you familiar with kids? Most kids around here love guns. They hunt with their dads and grandpas and sometimes the females of their families. I can't think of many families around here that are actively anti-gun, if any. I can think of some liberals that I would suspect and who might crawl out of the woodwork as many on this thread did, but really there are very few people around here who talk guns down. Several of the female teachers at my wife's school have actively been posting pro-firearms stuff on Facebook ever since this happened. While I'm sure that in places like Connecticut, there are many anti-gun folks, they don't exist in my world in any great numbers. There will be a lot less of the befuddled ones in the days to come when the NRA and other progun groups get on the ball after giving the affected folks some time-something the other side is not wont to do because their agenda doesn't have anything to do with the victims at its uppermost levels. It is indeed about people control and globalism. Dupes including guilt ridden, confused, and weak minded gun owners make up the foot soldiers of the movement and will blow back the other way lots of times. Most folks have a herd mentality and peer pressure is not limited to Junior High. Most folks have to anguish over this just to look good to their peer group. They will move on to the next Reality TV show as soon as the MSM lets them.

LEO would scream bloody murder if teachers usurped LEO's special place as our armed protection. The politically-driven chiefs would see to that. (This isn't in any way a condemnation of Law Officers, so please don't assume it is. It's a condemnation of Politician-first top level brass, and not all of them, either.)I could be mistaken, but our side has not yet begun to fight back and LE may have no choice. I see a big push coming for allowing CCW in the schools. Many of us on here, including the OP (blech) have been preaching fiscal responsibility. One LEO in a school may not seem like much money, but they are. It's at least one teaching job in an era characterized by the Feds taking money away from schools that don't meet pre-set and unrealistic goals. The schools are different in some states, but around here, the politicians at the state level control funding, so the districts have little leeway in how to spend funds. Nobody wants taxes raised although I can imagine now anguished pleading to raise them for the children. Ultimately, allowing teachers to simply exercise their 2nd Amendment rights as opposed to illegally repressing them as currently is done, is the best and most cost-effective solution, for a number of reasons.

The MSM would grind out massive propaganda day and night to quash this approach, and they have immense power, just witness the last election.They sure do and they really shine when it comes to influencing the weak-minded and stupid. The thing you're missing about the last election is that Obama only won by a piddling margin, less if you believe, as I do, that the Democrats are much better at cheating than the Republicans and they managed to maximize this factor. The news media is less of a factor with a free internet. That's why you see the government always moving to restrict the internet. It's a great freedom tool with alternative news sources you didn't see in the days of my youth. More gun control would've been a done-deal if this were 1980...it was done in 1994, but barely with Bob Dole being the deciding vote, allowing the Communist Veep to cast the winning vote on the original AWB for the bad guys. You've got a lot more people with skin in the game now and a lot more educated people who know it is not in their best interests to let more gun control go down.

It's high time our side gets smarter and speaks with one voice. We all don't see things 100% the same as you do or as I do. We can speak in rational talk without belligerence toward each other and toward the opposition about our common message. Shouting and calling names is simply falling into the antis' hands; they love to see us do that and point to the "irrational angry gun-waiving hicks" as an example of why guns don't belong in our hands. Shouting and name calling piles their ammunition.Really? How do you "shout" on the internet. Do you see me typing in all caps? This whole thread sukks donkey asss along with its original poster. It reeks of submission and defeat. It oozes guilt over something I assume he had nothing to do with and purports to speak for lots of us that it doesn't speak for. While I agree that we need to speak with one voice that voice needs to loudly and firmly say "no" to more gun control. I have seen this all before and it is the standard divide and conquer. You get all the pusssies agitated about losing their antiques and huntin' guns and they immediately go after the guns the 2nd was meant to protect. Guys like Will think they know everything. Witness how almost all of this content has been done-to-death here and elsewhere, but he comes on here acting like he came up with it in his own little head and its all original. It's not. Y'all are folks that I would have thought would know better but you encourage him even by continuing to post on this thread. I tried to stomp it out because it is insidiously reactionary and at its base, anti-2nd Amendment, which he declares in his title if you are good at decoding. You allow yourself to be scared and guilted into "participating in a conversation" and "looking for solutions" and you are actually helping to disarm the United States and ultimately furthering its destruction.

I honestly believe Will has it right this time for these times. A shift in focus away from guns as the problem and toward a violence that pervades throughout the younger generation's makeup needs to be the focus. I'm neither an expert on nor an advocate of degenerate violence in gaming and TV but the old ladies said the same thing about Palidan and Gunsmoke when they were allowed to talk by their husbands. As always, if you can't control the TV or computer in your own home, you get the results you deserve. If you set out to control mine, you're in for a fight. Oprah and Tipper Gore don't run my household, those who want them to run theirs are thus far free to let them.

In other words, it's time to use the opposition's tactics that are effective. We need to learn to make good smoke and blow it up their azzes for a change.

Guns in the classroom ain' not gonna happen. Crazy talk.

Neither you nor I know, but unlike some of you, I remember what went down during the original AWB and after Columbine, etc. It took a few days and even weeks for our side to start fighting back, but we did. The AWB barely squeaked by. It did sunset. There are a lot of positives here that nobody seems to be. I am generally a negative and pessimistic individual and with fairly good reason. I am not suited to motivational type stuff. But here I am pointing out that in many respects, we are much better off today than we were in my own youth.

My take on the teachers being armed is that it's coming whether some like it or not. Gun Control has had its day and there is ample objective evidence that it doesn't work. The only reason there is talk of it is due to venal old men at the top of the gun control heap continuing to foist it upon people who don't want it due to their own global and profit driven agenda. Under them are their hirelings and under them are a mass of weak-minded, uneducated idiots who follow along due to peer pressure and the influence of the bought and paid for media. There are more and more folks who see through the lies and who look for real solutions and not just the feel good stupidity that hasn't worked in the past. The Treasury is out of money and the politicians see an excellent opportunity to raise taxes under the guise of public safety and for the children! You can't get blood out of a turnip though and people are sick and tired of funding lame social experiments with their hard earned money while lame politicians sit back and act like they earned it with the sweat of their own brows. Allowing teachers to simply exert their own 2nd Amendment rights is the most cost effective, simple and efficient way to tackle this problem and it is coming. The anti's have thrown their screaming fit but sooner or later the hysteria will die down and objective, realistic men will step in and quietly go about doing what needs to be done to actually protect the schools and the people within them, rather than running around acting like a bunch of retarded chickens lacking heads.


I'm not sure if I agree that this is the game-changer that Will is projecting it as. The timing of it, with the holidays, is an interesting angle. There'll be lots of debate about this in kitchens and dens in the next couple weeks. The politicians will be watching closely, but I can't see enough of a groundswell forming over this to (putting it in practical terms) convince the Republican House to pass any significant legislation. There's no elections near.... much of the passion of this will dissipate over the holidays... there's no election near, and most importantly, there's no election near. So I predict smoke but no fire.While I am pretty much in agreement with you here we have to be ever vigilant. It also gives me pause that your track record on both common sense and political predictions is, for lack of some better terminology, wanting.

But, where I do agree with Will is that if we as gun owners were smart, we'd be actively looking for ways to hang onto our fundamental right, while reducing gun violence. One obvious one is finding palatable ways to get our guns stored more securely. I seriously doubt that the Newton shooter cut into his mom's gun safe with a torch....... just sayin'.....I don't disagree with this. Less violence in general is a good thing for any thinking person. Will's problem is he is looking at trading freedom for less violence and I am not for that. You will disagree, but the whole George Zimmerman thing is about you as a regular joe who wants to provide for his families safety and security, not being able to do so and having to look to the government for assistance. Lots of less publicized stuff goes down all the time in this vein. Why should a basically good person who defends himself or his family have to fear the aftermath? They shouldn't, but the government is a profitable enterprise with many totally dependent upon it both in an active and passive sense. When you do their job you ain't just pushing the shopping cart back in the store and depriving the cartboy of his job, you're coming up against one of the most powerful entities in the history of the world and they don't like it when you assert yourself or do for yourself. You're [bleep] with their shopping cart now.

Guns in the classroom ain' not gonna happen. Crazy talk.


I'm not sure if I agree that this is the game-changer that Will is projecting it as. The timing of it, with the holidays, is an interesting angle. There'll be lots of debate about this in kitchens and dens in the next couple weeks. The politicians will be watching closely, but I can't see enough of a groundswell forming over this to (putting it in practical terms) convince the Republican House to pass any significant legislation. There's no elections near.... much of the passion of this will dissipate over the holidays... there's no election near, and most importantly, there's no election near. So I predict smoke but no fire.

But, where I do agree with Will is that if we as gun owners were smart, we'd be actively looking for ways to hang onto our fundamental right, while reducing gun violence. One obvious one is finding palatable ways to get our guns stored more securely. I seriously doubt that the Newton shooter cut into his mom's gun safe with a torch....... just sayin'.....

It ain't about trading rights away and it ain't about waving the white flag. It is about taking a cold hard look at who is committing these rampages and figuring out how to keep them from getting their hands on weapons.

I just sent you a pm, Sport. But for public consumption, you can go f@uck yourself.

It is mostly young males in their early 20's.

I do know there is some late brain development/growth that occurs in the early 20's, it is also the same time frame where schizophrenia shows up in young adults. I could probably live with some age restrictions on purchasing handguns, assault rifles, and hi-capacity magazines until after this late brain development/growth period has passed. This would be much more preferable to an outright ban on those items.

The other issue to address is storage and access.

I am open to suggestions that don't involve any outright bans which is what the other side is currently pushing for. What suggestion do you have for preventing another Sandy Hook tragedy from ever happening again?

I am open to suggestions that don't involve any outright bans which is what the other side is currently pushing for. What suggestion do you have for preventing another Sandy Hook tragedy from ever happening again?

Our side really needs to put forth some reasonable suggestions, a failure to do so is surest way to see the bans the other side wants enacted.

see, there's the rub. that's a straw man argument. you are assuming by saying that there really is something that could be done to prevent another Sandy Hook.

In the end, as I have reiterated before, we need to start the discussion in a direction of things that actually have a chance to working. Not misdirection. Not trying to deflect. Honest debate about what actually stands a chance of working.

We are trying to have a conversation but the adults are hampered by the constant yammering of the scared little girls like yourself, hysterically quoting failed anti-gun arguments and trying to spook the herd. More guns, as Prof. Kleck so eruditely illustrated, are the answer, not less. More folks armed and ready to meet evil. Your disdain for "Grandmas" is lame, Sport. I'm thinking there are a lot of Grandma's in Kansas that could kick your asss from here to whatever liberal enclave you are from.

Limits on mag size and pistol grips and all this other stuff won't touch the problem. Won't even slow it down.

Proper storage for semi-autos (just like some other countries that we seem to point to as bastions of gun laws) is something I don't know that I could argue with. Wouldn't even argue against it in general. Finding ways to eliminate the killings where someone who has been eliminated from legally purchase but the info has not been passed on/processed? Needs to never happen. We live in a huge, complicated society with a gorilla-like government that gets ever more powerful due to you and others like you enabling it. Once again, arrogance. I do see you are modifying your position from what you initially alluded to at the very least. Serpentine but smart.

But in the end, again and again, we are presented with a rampage where the gunman was out of his mind. And in many of these cases the guy had already been identified as a risk but for whatever reason he never ends up institutionalized and getting the care he needs. In other cases people around them were scared of them but just never felt they had reason to bring them to the attention of authorities. This is where we need to start the discussion.

Some members have taken extreme offense at the thought of taking a more aggressive stance toward mental illness. I don't care. When I made this post I knew ahead of time I was going to lose some friends, I was going to alienate some who I just got along with, and would endure the ire of some I've never spoken with. Again, this is the truth as I see it. It needed to be said and said out loud. And then defended.

It ain't about trading rights away and it ain't about waving the white flag. It is about taking a cold hard look at who is committing these rampages and figuring out how to keep them from getting their hands on weapons. And if that upsets you greatly? Too bad.
Will

Since the death of her former client, she has taken a more proactive stance on involuntary commitment. But, it almost takes an act of congress to commit someone against their will, mainly due to very liberal statutes protecting the individual's rights. They can be a walking timebomb that any layperson could diagnose as batshit crazy, but unless they exhibit violent behavior or commit a crime they cannot be touched. And then usually only for 48 hours of observation.

The other problem is that there are no longer enough facilities to handle those that need to be committed.

Advocating for involuntary commitment to a mental institution is a slippery slope, and it is a slope we are already on in most States.

In FACT, what we do is lock people away for what we THINK they are THINKING.

Other than conspiracy statutes, our system is based on punishing ACTIONS, not thoughts.

There are a couple points that we should look at. Is there some way that kids can be brought into custody and examined that can keep a lid on their ability to make a break for it?

Second...doing so after he snapped. We may never know which is was but can we agree that having these weapons available to a volatile young man who was unhinged enough to be up for institutionalization is a pretty severe case of ineptitude?

sure, we can harden some school facilities, hire some resource officers, require some more training, storage requirments, limit mag capacities and ammo, even restrict what kind of guns you can buy. if that makes people feel better, fine.

but it will not change ANYTHING.

Will, I understand you're a smart guy. Probably smarter than me.

Will, you used a lot of different "names" for these shooters.

This latest was an "agent of the devil".Call him by his right name and you will see the futility of preventive measures.All we can do is take measures to limit the damage one of them can do.

A person who doesn't believe in a powerful EVIL influence commonly called Satan, is forever going to be frustrated in dealing with his actions.

No offense toward Will, E.E., but the "elites" among us are willing to explore all options,put everything on the table,.........................

Except for this.

This wasn't considered worthy of a response.

Why do y'all keep saying P is smart?

Sorry curdog but there isn't much I can say about it. Although I have always believed in God and pray for guidance and thanks occasionally, I do not believe in satan, the devil, Luicifer, or whathaveyou.

No common ground for a discussion. I don't dismiss your theory out of hand it just isn't something I wanted to veer off into. I'm more concerned with what we can do that what a demon I don't believe in is responsible for.

No offense meant.

Will

The mentally ill have been granted rights so that there isn't abuse and you can't just call the Psych Cops and have somebody committed. Held for observation for a limited period of time, yes, but having them institutionalized requires court intervention.

The Aurora and Connecticut shootings are both situations where a previously identified mentally unstable person committed mass murder and therein lies the problem. Although, in each case both young men were deeply withdrawn and more than likely didn't voice their intentions.

The current rumor is that Lanza snapped but I believe he planned it and kept his plans secret. There's enough evidence so far to suggest that. He had a vest of some type with enough magazines to contain hundreds of rounds and it's highly unlikely that mom would have had purchased those things.

Could either shooting have been prevented? Maybe in Holme's case but in Lanza's case ... I don't think so.

I believe there are flaws in our current mental health system but how you go about making changes or what changes are possible to prevent mass murder is beyond me. This is something that health care professionals need to address. Not the govt, not the left, not the NRA but experts that can make sound recommendations regarding new protocols or changes to our current laws.

When the rights of the few exceed the risk of harm to the public at large I believe there is room for change however there's no way to prevent these types of killings. Reduce the number ... possibly ... stop it entirely ... no.

Tax credit for 90% of the cost of a gunsafe up to a value of $1500. Might have stopped Sandy hook, even if it doesn't it would likely save dozens of kids lives every year.

I like it.

The mentally ill have been granted rights so that there isn't abuse and you can't just call the Psych Cops and have somebody committed. Held for observation for a limited period of time, yes, but having them institutionalized requires court intervention.

The Aurora and Connecticut shootings are both situations where a previously identified mentally unstable person committed mass murder and therein lies the problem. Although, in each case both young men were deeply withdrawn and more than likely didn't voice their intentions.

The current rumor is that Lanza snapped but I believe he planned it and kept his plans secret. There's enough evidence so far to suggest that. He had a vest of some type with enough magazines to contain hundreds of rounds and it's highly unlikely that mom would have had purchased those things.

Could either shooting have been prevented? Maybe in Holme's case but in Lanza's case ... I don't think so.

I believe there are flaws in our current mental health system but how you go about making changes or what changes are possible to prevent mass murder is beyond me. This is something that health care professionals need to address. Not the govt, not the left, not the NRA but experts that can make sound recommendations regarding new protocols or changes to our current laws.

When the rights of the few exceed the risk of harm to the public at large I believe there is room for change however there's no way to prevent these types of killings. Reduce the number ... possibly ... stop it entirely ... no.

This might get me on the schit list too but here goes ...

Teachers or administrators carrying at school is a can of worms.

Here's one scenario. An urban high school in the middle of the worst of it and where a teacher really fears for his/her life in the classroom. Open or concealed carry would be a disaster waiting to happen. It'd only be a matter of time before a gang of thugs would beat down a teacher or administrator and steal the weapon.

Locked in a safe and only to be used in the most dire of emergencies? Well ... you'd never get the majority of the public, the NEA or school boards to allow it.

There is a hell of a big difference between REQUIRING teachers to carry[which nobody has suggested] and ALLOWING teachers to carry.

No can of worms, in fact quite plausible. Here's the fix for that; CCW permits, their key to success is their stealth, kinda like when we use to say "we can't confirm or deny" the presence of nuclear weapons on board our Aircraft Carriers....

I could probably live with some age restrictions on purchasing handguns, assault rifles, and hi-capacity magazines until after this late brain development/growth period has passed.

This is not the time for "Cold, dead hands" rhetoric, no, it is a time to hunker down and take a few punches. It is a time to beat an orderly retreat so that we only lose this battle and not the war. We need a reasoned response from reasonable gun owners, not shouts from our Lunatic Fringe.

Where does the blue haired Mrs. Shlotsky keep her weapon hidden yet easily accessible?

Sooner or later a kid would catch a glimpse and rumors would spread like wildfire.

Could Mrs. Shlotsky stop three or four teenage gang members from taking her weapon in a crowded hallway?

So ... here's a hypothetical question with minutiae galore.

How much would a jury award to the parents of the chirren who where slain when Mrs. Shlotsky was attacked in a crowded hallway, by a gang of thugs, lost control of her weapon and when Mr. Perkins came to the rescue brandishing his pistola, a firefight ensued and the thugs and Mr. Perkins took out a total of fourteen innocent students?

Six dead ... eight critically wounded.

White teacher shoots black student in inner city school= chit storm. I don't care what the situation was at the time of the shooting. If its anyone other than a Leo with a badge doing the shooting it's gona go bad.

Tax credit for 90% of the cost of a gunsafe up to a value of $1500. Might have stopped Sandy hook, even if it doesn't it would likely save dozens of kids lives every year.

Yep.

Do I get it retroactively for my two safes?

THIS is the kind of thing we should be considering conceding as a group. Because make no mistake- it's an infringement on our RIGHT. But that doesn't mean it's not a smart tactical move for us gun owners to make.

I vet the NRA says something similar Friday...

Yep.

Do I get it retroactively for my two safes?

THIS is the kind of thing we should be considering conceding as a group. Because make no mistake- it's an infringement on our RIGHT. But that doesn't mean it's not a smart tactical move for us gun owners to make.

I bet the NRA says something similar Friday...

Anyone who believes that the present temper of the public would allow teachers to be armed is delusional. It just ain't going to happen.

Floating ideas like that is what gives our side a reputation of lunacy.

Does anyone here think that high capacity magazines will not soon made illegal? When they are will that be such a big deal? Why?

I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

As far as mental illness goes Paul you have made great points. And I will tell you right now that the medical profession is going to have to play a pivotal role in determining what can and can't be accomplished. And I'll admit that it will need to be flexible enough to deal with changing treatments etc. It is going to be hard work. But well worth it I would argue.

Will

And I will tell you right now that the medical profession is going to have to play a pivotal role in determining what can and can't be accomplished.

The non-compliant mentally ill, though? All too often there's silence or a chance of subject. Very, very few mental health care professionals are willing to speak candidly about what needs to be done with the mentally ill who refuse treatment and medications, and resist even the least instrusive of wellness checks, except to say, in the vaguest possible terms, that "more has to be done" to help them.

But these are the ticking time bombs we most have to worry about.

In terms of danger, there's a hidden iceberg. One of the ironies of mental illness and treatment, that is well recognized among professionals, is that many of those who need treatment the most are the very ones who won't go near it mainly because that would mean they are "crazy", while the vast majority of those who actually get treatment are in better shape and less dangerous than those who never show up on the radar. That is, until they get into trouble and come to the attention of law enforcement or emergency care. It's like whack-a-mole trying to deal with it.

Want an prime example of fear of the stigma of being labeled mentally ill? Look at the huge problem within the military and among veterans. It's also an issue within law enforcement that is seldom recognized.

Paul

I don't have time to Google this, but IIRC, most of the shooters in the high-profile killings we've had in the past couple of years have had histories of mental health care treatment.

Who was that guy who sent his shrink something ominous in the mail days before he started killing, and she didn't open it until the day after? Didn't she even previously warn her colleagues that she thought the guy was dangerous?

Was that the theater killer?

In the final analysis thought and speech control is a much greater danger than gun control.

It seems to me that you have a lot of guys who are MI and eventually commit crimes of such magnitude that they end up in prison.

Change not be perfect... but doesn't the system as it stands now end up producing a hell of a lot of mayhem and death?

Will

I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons.

I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons.

Will

I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.

The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.

Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.

And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.

We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.

My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?

Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?

We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?

I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.

There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.

IMvHO,
Will

I work a bit in/around psychology/ists, and there is not a person I've ever known that I could not diagnose with some form of mental disturbance from the DSM IV. Hence, everyone will be disarmed if the main line of argument is mental illness.

A free society is inherently dangerous.

I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons. If we don't do a better job of that then this scenario will happen again. And again. And again. And each time it does the pressure is going to build. And public perception will slide further and further away from us.

I feel it is high time for us to look at our hole cards. We are running interference for a lot of people who neither understand nor care about the 2nd amendment. Not wise to do so anymore in my opinion.

Will

Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, and Steven Kazmierczak (and heaven knows who else) were ALL on the radar of psychiatrists BEFORE they went on their rampages. We're acting like it is some kind of a unicorn hunt to find out who these guys are.

Will

Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, and Steven Kazmierczak (and heaven knows who else) were ALL on the radar of psychiatrists BEFORE they went on their rampages. We're acting like it is some kind of a unicorn hunt to find out who these guys are.

Will

There is no one here who could not be diagnosed as "mentally ill" by a sufficiently motivated Government shrink.

I could live with it but I don't see how it would be enforceable.

That's pretty much present California law and has been for many years. Like I said you have to sign an affidavit when buying a gun stating you have a safe and the make and model of that safe.

How bad an infringement do you consider a 10 round limit? 15 round limit?

How about offering social solutions for preventing another mass killing of little tykes, instead of shouting "from my cold dead hands" all the time?

[quote=EthanEdwards]As I stated before, in my mind real men roll up their sleeves and get to work when there is work to do. They engage with the world as it actually is, not as they wish it were. They tackle tough issues and tough problems with a cool head and conviction.

How bad an infringement do you guys consider a mandatory secure storage requirement to be?

How bad an infringement do you guys consider a mandatory secure storage requirement to be?

I would bet the farm that you didn't understand my post.

We're running interference for a lot of mentally ill people who neither know or care about the 2nd Amendment. That was the group I was talking about.

Whether you or anyone else can or can not buy a 30 round clip will have absolutely no impact on how many guys the next crazed gunman shoots nor your ability to exercise you 2nd Amendment rights. It is a red herring. Useless political rhetoric that will accomplish nothing whatsoever in the end.

But whether we find a way to get the next borderline psych job locked up before he murders a bunch of innocents? Don't you thing that would actually do something to help?

Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, and Steven Kazmierczak (and heaven knows who else) were ALL on the radar of psychiatrists BEFORE they went on their rampages. We're acting like it is some kind of a unicorn hunt to find out who these guys are.

Will

KMA.

The people that want to impose their will on us could not care less about what you or any of us have to say. I'll save the begging and my self respect.

Expat