Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Kynoch, Feb 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    You're simply wrong about that. In years past such people were institutionalized after the were adjudicated as being criminally insane. Now they are drugged and too often they live on the streets and too often forget to take their meds.

    Try reading this sort, real world essay on the matter: I am Adam Lanza's mother

    Mass shootings have been almost universally committed by whack-jobs. That's indisputable.

    No, they aren't the "only practical solutions." Many things combine to form at best a partial solution.
     
  2. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Sure I do, by its very definition...
     
  3. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    You can disagree with me which is fine, but the evidence is that mental health identification of violent folks is lacking. Here is an article summarizing some of this evidence. If you would like, I will find some more articles on this issue.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/dome...-can-t-spot-the-next-violent-shooter-20121218

    There is indeed a profile of young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues that have caused most of these mass shootings. Yes, that is indeed true. What is also true is that there are a LOT of kids with that description. Sorting out which will or won't commit such an act is a different issue. Perhaps we should just lock up all young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues.

    One researcher disputes the common belief that these kids are all seriously mentally ill.

    http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/07/24/inside-the-minds-of-mass-killers/

    Lastly, eliminating gun free zones is the single best action we have that would greatly reduce mass school shootings. Allowing more concealed carry in these areas will also go a long way since one of the traits of many of these mass murderers is committing suicide once they encounter any armed resistance. Lastly, the NRA is correct to focus on school security but I don't believe it should in any manner be conducted at the Federal level.

    If you don't believe this works, just research the solution in Israel, Peru and the Philippines. America is not likely to ever consider those things that work since it appears we have lost our national common sense long ago. Mas Ayoob noted such in a recent article he wrote on what we should do to avert mass school shootings here in the US.

    http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/
     
  4. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    Actually you suggest "that mental health identification of violent folks is lacking." Others disagree with you.

    Extremely difficult and ongoing but it needs to begin. Apathy is the killer on this one.

    I agree about the GFZ and the CCW. I didn't include CCW because it simply wouldn't sell right now. **If** any gun controls exist, I would much prefer they be uniform at the federal level.

    There is still plenty we can do. I'm not about to give up on the USA...
     
  5. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    As a primary care physician for nearly 20 years before retiring due to renal disease, I had many patients who fit the profile of a "mass" murderer: young, white, socially isolated male in their 20's. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of them in all those years committed a mass murder.

    Perhaps we are missing the message in just as dramatic a fashion as the anti's are by blaming these examples all on mental illness. Certainly, the Aurora man is indeed in that category as well as the Arizona shooter. But that is not true of many of these creeps. Social isolation and poor communication skills are not reasonable reasons to lock up anyone and in fact the law reflects that. If we focus on mental health and ignore the issue of violence in our society in general, we miss the largest contributor to not only mass killings but all murders in this nation.

    The anti's are likewise focussing on the gun instead of the underlying problem of violence in this nation. That may be the one common factor we have on both sides of the issue. One form of violence in this nation is the bullying problem which according to many accounts is becoming epidemic. Bullying is one common factor of many of these mass murderers.

    In many ways, the violence we tolerate in our daily lives on TV, video games is directly mirrored by what is happening in our streets every day. If we are going to have areas of agreement with the anti's, in reality, the best starting ground is with the issue of violence.

    I have my own solution to the issue, but it seems that this nation kicked God out of our schools over 50 years ago. What is there that can and has restrained violence in the past is now universally rejected by both anti's and pro-gun folks alike. This is a gun forum, so I can't perseverate on the issue, but the reason for the failure of gun control in England is because it does nothing to stem the underlying violence. England is now once again looking at controlling knives and other objects and once again missing the point.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen...-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/

    We should likewise not miss the point as well. Violence is the problem, focussing aggressively on mental health approaches by the admission of mental health professionals will not prevent these events.

    if you have sources that state differently, please feel free to provide them so we can evaluate them for their veracity.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  6. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    I strongly agree that the focus cannot only be on mental health. If that would happen it would be a big mistake akin to focusing only on gun control. Any "solution" will be multi-faceted and it will obviously not be absolute.

    I also strongly agree that the underlying cause for the entire mess that is today's septic society is the systematic elimination of God from our day-to-day lives by the forces of militant secularism. No question in my mind whatsoever.

    But society has to start somewhere. I believe the NRA would have been doing the country a big favor by offering a well thought-out outline. I think it would also have been the best weapon to use against the current push for worthless and ultimately dangerous gun control.
     
  7. Alaska444

    Alaska444 member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    Glad to hear we agree more than disagree.

    When the NRA statement came out, I was a bit taken back and felt that they had chosen the wrong approach. Now, I believe that they did tackle it by going after the security issue directly, but perhaps had the wrong spokesperson.

    Shucks, I wish they would have put Allan Gura out there and let him discuss these issues and go over school security. I guess he isn't their spokesperson, but maybe it wasn't so much the message rather it may have been the messenger of the NRA.
     
  8. radar1972

    radar1972 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    77
    Location:
    Georgia
    1. Does mental health need to be addressed? Yes, but as long as the liberal left has the loudest voice (and they do), mental health will not be the focus of ANY plan. Their focus is Control..... whether it be gun control or abc control or xyz control. They want to control every aspect of your life. And if you disagree, you are intolerant.

    2. Does the NRA need a new spokesperson? Yes. Each time I see WLP in any public speaking setting, I cringe.
     
  9. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    1.) So you say. "Mental health" needs to be a component of any real plan. Slowly but surely it's getting mentioned more and more by the politicos and the popular media.

    2.) WLP should be the NRA's chief lobbiest perhaps but not its CEO. The NRA has outgrown WLP.
     
  10. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    WLP is not only a poor spokesman, he's the "face of contention." The "face of much baggage" going back to the jack-booted thug days.
     
  11. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I think he makes an effective CEO; but I would have someone else doing the spokesperson role.
     
  12. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    In making mental health a part of any plan, we must be on guard against any plan that allows the government, through the Surgeon General or the CDC or any other agency to determine what makes a person mentally healthy enough for gun ownership. Such administrative actions are wide ranging and affect people, not persons.

    A person who is adjudicated mentally ill is prohibited from gun ownership, but adjudicated is a result of due process of law and this occurs on an case by case basis. We must not allow this to become an administrative decision rather than a judicial one.
     
  13. Kynoch

    Kynoch member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,481
    Location:
    California Coast
    You are 100% right. The problem is that there are mentally ill people in this world that just sort of "float around" until all hell breaks loose. There really is no system that will trigger the beginning of the adjudication process except for committing a serious violent crime. Even then the punishment is often short and the control of said person quickly ends.

    There are mentally ill people in this world that desperately need help before they (re)commit a serious violent crime. Their family and friends know it. Their schools and co-workers know it. Often they have had more than one in with the law but the focus is not on their mental health -- even when it's obvious it should be. How to change that before the next one goes off?

    As an aside, your concern is probably be exemplified by returning combat vets. MANY suffer from diagnosed PTSD and other emotional ailments. It would be a terrible thing if such a diagnosis automatically kept anyone from owning a gun via an administrative process.
     
  14. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Mental health professionals (at least the objective and honest ones) continue to say that their are no reliable predictors of violent behavior other than a past history of such behavior. The only thing that can be reliably predicted about the mentally ill is that they will behave differently from what is "normal" for most people. Different is not necessarily violent, but it may be because violent behavior is generally considered abnormal.

    The mentally ill need to be diagnosed and treated. While in treatment under the care of a mental health professional, their behavior can be monitored to a greater degree.

    But treatment often involves medication to control and stabalize behavior and once this stability is achieved, many patients discontinue their treatment unilaterally, thinking or hoping that they are cured. This sudden cessation of medication often results in drastic changes in brain chemistry leading to extremely aberrant behavior and often violent acts. This IMO is where the greatest danger is in the treatment of the mentally ill. Once they have achieved a level of stability, they must continue to be monitored to make sure they continue to take their medication and retain that stability.
     
  15. RTR_RTR

    RTR_RTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    321
    Conservatives have sure done a lot for mental health ;)

    Under which conditions should we have state employees observing scheduled medication intake? Based on my interactions with patients, I would say a larger issue for treatment nonadherence is the adverse side effects of medications (particularly antipsychotics)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page