Last edited by chiefst2000; 12-17-2012 at 03:56 PM.
Dealing with people with mental illness in this country would be an awesome step.
Cutting funding to OMH would be a great start.
Problem is that dude here could have had top notch health care. But Mom ignored the problem....instead opting to stockpile weapons because Obama was gunna take 'er guns.
I'm not sure she was stockpiling weapons because of Obama by the way. Connecticut experienced one of the most vile break in murder stories ever a couple of years ago. That incident inspired a lot of folks to arm themselves. She was recently divorced and I would imagine the guns gave her a sense of security. She should have locked up the weapons though. Keeping guns out in the open is blatantly irresponsible.
Maybe a follow up question would be....why does this country have suck an epidemic of mental health issues?
I think. I think we "over-diagnose" problems that aren't actually real while sidelining problems that are severe. Being anxious isn't a mental health problem requiring medication (and the trillions of dollars funneled into doping up people with anxiety disorders). Aspergers? Lets spend some more on research into that.
We'll leave the restless legs sufferers to their leg jimmies. If they want to get high on their insurers dime, they can cop a nickle bag at the corner. It'll do the same thing.
Like PK said, there's an epidemic of autism in this country that the government will not admit is an epidemic. But childhood obesity and trampoline accidents are.
So if you want to see mental health issues addressed in a serious and meaningful way, there's about a million+ kids that shared a diagnosis like Adam Lanza who'd love for you do petition your lawmaker to help them. Start there...
There can be a comorbidity of schizophrenia. Any bouts of true violence by a person with an ASD that I have read about were always of the primal variety, almost primate-like in their ferocity (yes 32, chimp attacks). This was a case of someone that put in quite a bit of thought and planning into. Really, the first thing I thought of when they started to flesh-out the family background was "We Have to Talk About Kevin."
THE 10 MOST EXPLOSIVE GUN CONTROL FACTS: How to Save Lives
• What is the common feature of these shocking, mass attacks? They take place where guns are banned.
• Take the Aurora, Colorado movie theater example: there were seven movie theaters showing the movie Batman within a 20-minute drive of where the killer lived.
He didn't go to the movie theater closest to his home. He didn't go to the movie theater with the largest audience. He went to the one movie theater -- the only one -- that posted a sign that banned concealed handguns from the theater.
• Look at gun bans more generally: Now if you look at bans generally, you can't point to a place, Chicago and Washington, D.C., where we ban guns with positive results. Instead, murder rates and violent crimes went up afterwards. In the U.K. and Jamaica, Ireland, island nations that have banned guns -- you can't find a place where murder rates have actually gone down. They have gone up usually by large amounts.
• Let's look at gun-free zones hypothetically on a personal level: Let's say someone was stalking you. That person was threatening violence against you and your family. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home that read, "This home is a gun-free zone"?
Would that deter someone intent on violence -- or encourage one? In fact, nobody would put a sign like that in front of their home. Yet some businesses and offices think posting such a sign, at movie theaters and malls will help -- when common sense would tell us that it does not.
• Rather than repelling criminals, gun bans actually encourage violence. Gun-free zones instruct the malevolent criminal where victims can't defend themselves.
• The reason these mass attacks occur is because the killer wants to commit suicide. If you read the notes they leave or their diaries, if you watch their videos, you'll find that -- time after time -- they want to kill themselves in a way that will make people notice them. In their sick minds, they want to go out in a blaze of violence that will have people pay attention to them.
In these mass attacks, 75 percent of the time the killers die at the scene; the other 25 percent they planned on dying, but they couldn't bring themselves to finish the act of suicide.
• These people want to get media attention. They know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they'll get. So they target the places where they can kill as many people as possible. And they're planning these things months and months in advance.
• Should schools have armed guards? We should learn something from Israel. They've had a terrorist problem since the forties. For years they tried to do just that - have more police, more military, more armed security guards and they discovered they simply didn't have enough money. Terrorists have huge strategic advantages to patiently find weak points.
In the early seventies, Israel finally realized they couldn't flood areas with enough military or police. They instead began permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons. About 15 percent of citizens are so licensed.
At the time of the Virginia Tech shooting, something similar was attempted. Before the shooting, you had about one police officer for every 80 acres of campus. After the attack, it was one officer for every 40 acres. It doesn't scale.
You see this in the methodical way these killers choose locations now. They find places where people cannot defend themselves.
• Do gun bans work? The natural reaction is to say, "If I can just get rid of the gun, I can stop bad things from happening." You don't think about all of the unintended consequences of that:
What about all of the successful defensive uses of guns?
More importantly, can you prevent evil individuals from getting guns? You can't find a country around the world that ever imposed a gun ban where murder rates actually fell after the ban.
Even island nations -- you would think these would be the ideal experiment -- with gun bans are unable to prevent criminal gangs from bringing in guns, drugs, and other contraband.
It's the good, law-abiding citizens that are impacted by gun bans, not criminals. To the extent that you disarm law-abiding citizens and not the violent, you find the perverse result that things get worse. This occurred in Washington, DC and Chicago. After their gun bans, violent crime and murder rates spiked.
The question you have to ask yourself about gun laws: who are you most likely to disarm: the law-abiding citizen or the criminal?
The gun-free zone provides a clear field for evil to carry out mass murder. It creates sitting ducks for violence. Those who push gun control may mean well (or not), but they haven't thought through what they want to do.
If gun-control zealots could point to even a few countries where gun bans lowered murder rates, they might have a legitimate argument. But they can't, because they don't exist.
• Europe has about the same rate of public shootings per capita as the U.S., yet it has far more draconian gun regulations. Germany, which has two of the worst four school shootings, has a year-long waiting period with two psychological screens. When you have people who take months to plan attacks, and are willing to die to pull the attacks off, will not be deterred.
If you want to stop these attacks, you can take two actions:
(1) The media can stop giving publicity to these killers. The media shouldn't name the killers. This would reduce to a large extent the motivation for the attacks.
(2) We must reduce and eliminate "gun-free zones". Since at least 1950, with but one exception, all public shootings with three or more victims have all taken place in venues where guns were banned. The theater shooting, the Sikh Temple shooting, the school shootings, you go down the list and in each case, the gun-free zone is the place the killers always choose.
Via Professor John Lott, the world's foremost expert on the impact of gun control laws on society. Paraphrased from an interview on The Mark Levin Show (MP3).
The second amendment was written in a vastly different time with far different intentions then what the gun lobbyists would have us believe. We can spend hours debating this point, and I would enjoy that discussion. But the issue for me is not trying to take away the right to own a gun. And no piece of legislation will eliminate the potential for another tragedy.
But there needs to be a sensible change made to what weapons can be purchased under the guise of protection or for sport. There also needs to be far more extensive background checks for people wanting to purchase guns and that must include psychological history checks. Finally, there needs to be an overhaul to how the gun shows operate because there are far too many vendors who bend the rules (such as they are) in a quest to make money without regard to safety.
Here is a portion of an interesting article by CNN's David Gergen, one of the few main stream media heads that I trust;
What is needed immediately is a conversation determining what principles we want to establish — and then action to realize them. From my perspective, there should be at least three basic principles:
FIRST: To own a gun, you must first have a license — and it shouldn’t be easy to get. The right parallel is to cars: Everyone over a prescribed age is entitled to drive. But cars are dangerous, so we first require a license — determining that you are fit to drive. Citizens have a right to bear arms, but guns are dangerous, too. So, get a license.
There are a number of issues with our current system of state-based permits. First, variation in gun regulations from state to state deeply complicates enforcement efforts. Arizona, for instance, allows concealed carry without any permit, while its neighbor California has implemented the strongest gun laws in the country. We must design a sensible federal gun control policy to address the current legal chaos.
As we construct a federal licensing system, we should look to California. The state requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, mandating background checks and a ten-day waiting period; bans most assault weapons and all large-capacity magazines; closes the nonsensical gun-show loophole; and maintains a permanent record of all sales.
SECOND: If you are a civilian, you can’t buy an assault gun. Hunters don’t need military style weapons, nor do homeowners who want to be able to protect their families. They are far too popular among people who shouldn’t have access to guns in the first place.
We should restore the federal ban that has expired.
THIRD: Parents should be heavily advised to keep guns out of their houses and out of the hands of kids. No one wants to blame the poor mother of the Connecticut shooter, but everyone wonders why she kept so many military-style guns in the house, so accessible to her son. It’s hard to believe, but roughly a third of households with children younger than 18 contain at least one gun. In too many neighborhoods in America — not just in big cities — parents who don’t allow guns in their homes are apprehensive, even frightened, by their kids playing at homes where they are kept.
Some years ago, no one thought that we could change our tobacco culture. We did. No one thought that we could reduce drunk driving by teenagers. We did — thanks in large part to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Years from now, no one will note what we say after this latest massacre. But they will hold us morally accountable for what we do. To honor all of those who have been slain in recent years — starting with the first-graders in Connecticut — we should highly resolve to change our culture of guns.
1. Guns caused it (Guns do not cause anyhting, they are a tool only).
2. Video Games caused it.
3. Violent Movies caused it.
4. Lack of God in Schools caused it.
5. Over-Emphasis on Testing in Schools casued it.
I'd say we (the public) have no idea what caused it as yet, but it probably wasn't any of these things listed, they're just the usual flogging of political desires and preexisting biases.
I think you realize that your sensativity on this issue is that you feel personally like you're being blamed, because you have a child that autistic. You fear that the reaction will label your perfectly law abiding autistic child as a potential killer.
Same as millions of gun owners, game players, movie viewers, non-religious folks and test takers ALSO feel they're bing unfairly blamed/labeled, and are at risk of losing their rights and the rights of millions of law abiding Americans, based on the actions (as yet motive unknown) on one individual.
This is teh normal course of things, something bad (and flashy) happens, and society as a whole demands something greater to blame.
And truth is, we do not know enough about the human brain to say what the real factors were. A bunch of psudo-scientist "psychiatrists" can SAY Asperbergs played no part.....but they most certainly cannot prove that in any meaningful way.
Same as gamers. Movies. Etc, etc, etc.
Definitely did not do the autism community any favors.