Connecticut School Shooting

[caz]

Yes but the interesting thing is, no one is sitting there trying to outlaw the ownership of cars or pills because some people are careless with them. More people die in car accidents and drug overdoses than by guns. SO let's outlaw cars and pills first, then we'll discuss guns.

Cars and pills can and do kill, but that's not what they are made for, it's not their primary function and most fatalities are accidental. If guns couldn't injure or kill they'd have no function at all.

I do find it interesting that you apparently cede your belief in who can be trusted to others. I mean who precisely is anyone to decide what I can and cannot be trusted with when it comes to my own life. I don't CARE if it's open to abuse or misuse by members of the population. That hasn't caused us to outlaw anti-freeze and people poison people with anti-freeze. You don't even a license to buy it and yet, something like a suicide pill that could require, prescription, a doctor overseeing all kinds of checks and balances in the process, no, that we poor stupid humans are just too dumb to be trusted with.

I agreed with you concerning the suicide pill issue. I regret the fact that it won't become a reality while the powers that be flat out refuse to let us decide such a thing for ourselves, but I can't do a whole lot about it. I just wonder why, where you live, the same powers that be who won't let you have suicide pills even under close supervision, are happy to let you decide for yourselves if you want a gun to shoot someone else's kids dead.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Cars and pills can and do kill, but that's not what they are made for, it's not their primary function and most fatalities are accidental. If guns couldn't injure or kill they'd have no function at all.

Amen. We could add anti-freeze to this list. There is, for what it's worth, a low-tox anti-freeze available. It'll still kill you if you drink enough of it, but the dose is important. It's possible for a pet of a child to die from a very small dose of regular anti-freeze. The same-sized child would require several cups of the low-tox, which gives a bigger window for parental intervention, and a better chance for the child to decide that the stuff isn't all that fun. In the case of pets, a small pet won't get a lethal dose from a few laps of a puddle in a parking lot.

The thing is, it costs about 3 times as much as the regular stuff. We buy it, because we have dogs, cats, and always have, and now have a child. We've never stored anti-freeze in the house; we kept it locked outside. Whenever we buy a new car, we take it in and have the system flushed, and replaced with low-tox.

I'm glad we can afford to do this. I know a lot of people can't. But I also know that a lot of people who could afford it aren't even aware of the possibility, and that sort of annoys me.

I agreed with you concerning the suicide pill issue. I regret the fact that it won't become a reality while the powers that be flat out refuse to let us decide such a thing for ourselves, but I can't do a whole lot about it. I just wonder why, where you live, the same powers that be who won't let you have suicide pills even under close supervision

Close supervision is important. There's never going to be a suicide pill, until, as a country, we agree that at least some people ought to be allowed to choose suicide. No medication is perfect. There is always someone who is going to be resistant to a medication, or have a paradoxical reaction, or get sick from it, and throw it up, after having absorbed just a small amount of it.

This is why we have to agree that committing suicide is a legal act, so that people who choose to begin it, but for whom the medication fails, won't suffer, and end up worse off than they began, possibly brain damaged, because of an adverse reaction to the medication. Something like a "suicide pill" needs to be administered in the presence of a doctor. The patient should be in control, holding the pill, pressing the button, or however it will work, but a second person, with training, needs to make sure that everything is going as planned. The person needs to stop the process if it's going awry, and continue with a "plan B" if necessary.

Believe me, I took a dog in to be euthanized, and she had a paradoxical reaction to the first medication that was supposed to relax her (something along the line of Valium for humans), so there was a sudden rush to go to the "killing" injection, as her distress had been increased, and I didn't get to spend the ten minutes that I was supposed to get, comforting her, while she got drowsy. The thing was, without the relaxant, she reacted to the pain of the other injection, and the procedure was much more stressful than it should have been. I don't regret having done it, because she was very sick, and couldn't walk, or even stand up. But if someone had just sent me home from the vet with a pill to give her, and no back-up plan, it would have been terrible.

[Ally]

Cars and pills can and do kill, but that's not what they are made for, it's not their primary function and most fatalities are accidental.

Actually, no most fatalities are not accidental. Fatalities occur when people handle these legal substances in an irresponsible or illegal manner. As I have already said on this thread, very few people kill someone in a car accident while they are paying attention to what they are doing, and driving in a safe and responsible manner. They kill people when they are driving drunk, texting, speeding in icy conditions, etc. The same with pills. When people use legal devices in irresponsible or illegal ways and deaths results it's not "accidental". Whether it's a gun, or a car.

If guns couldn't injure or kill they'd have no function at all.

And? So what? I am perfectly happy having a device whose sole function is to injure or kill should someone break into my house and attempt to injure or kill me. Tools serve the purpose they are meant for. Human beings have been creating weapons since the dawn of time. Taking away one specific weapon as if it is the cause of all our problems is ridiculous.

Guns, used legally and responsibly, are no more an issue than cars or pills.

I just wonder why, where you live, the same powers that be who won't let you have suicide pills even under close supervision, are happy to let you decide for yourselves if you want a gun to shoot someone else's kids dead.

Because the purpose of a gun is not to shoot someone's kid dead. It's to defend yourself against killers and rapists which my country supports. The fact that people misuse it is no more a reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw cars because some people drive drunk or go drag racing. We don't believe in taking away rights from all people, because some of you can't control yourselves or act responsibly. As for the suicide argument, it's mostly because our leaders are cowards when it comes to raising such issues even though most of them are aware that it happens more frequently than anyone wants to address.

[Errata]

Actually if people with guns had to go through what people in pain management have to go through, in order to properly store the items in question so as to continue to be allowed to own them, most people wouldn't bother getting guns.

The Hitler thing is a bad example. Jews already had a lousy record when it came to armed resistance. And the initial laws banning guns were not made by the Nazis, but by the previous government trying to remove power from the Nazis. Not that it mattered. Hitler came to power through legal elections. Not force of arms. The statement that dictatorships first take the guns away is not even a little a universal truth. Many dictators never bother to disarm the populace. Rwanda springs to mind. The Congo. Pol Pot never bothered to disarm the Cambodians.

And while the guy on Piers Morgan (who was a legitimate guest, since he put forth the notion that Piers Morgan needed to be deported. It doesn't make him a respectable guest, but it made him the logical one) clearly has some screws loose, he isn't mentally ill. There's a difference. Alex Jones is not rational. But that doesn't mean he would register on any test as having a mental illness. Crazy comes in many flavors. Many of those flavors are fleeting, confined to a single topic, or a short moment in time. People who shriek at other cars in traffic are not rational either. But no one runs to get them looked at by a professional. And ironically, the situationally crazy people who would pass any assessment with flying colors are far more of a problem than those of us who can point to a spot on our brain and say "that there is the problem".

[RivkahChaya]

Alex Jones is not rational. But that doesn't mean he would register on any test as having a mental illness. Crazy comes in many flavors. Many of those flavors are fleeting, confined to a single topic, or a short moment in time. People who shriek at other cars in traffic are not rational either. But no one runs to get them looked at by a professional. And ironically, the situationally crazy people who would pass any assessment with flying colors are far more of a problem than those of us who can point to a spot on our brain and say "that there is the problem".

On that: if any jurisdiction decided on a test for gun permit, requiring a person to meet with a doctor, NY, psychologist or therapist, I hope that the first thing that would happen is that a committee would sit down and discuss exactly what they were looking for, and why.

Here's some for instances:

They would be looking for undiagnosed mental illnesses, like depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, because of the high rate of suicide among those groups. Someone who seemed to meet a diagnostic category might be told to seek further treatment if he still wanted to pursue gun possession, which is not the same as ordering treatment.

Any active alcoholic or drug addict would be denied a permit, but someone who could demonstrate sobriety over a long period of time would be reconsidered. Anyone who confessed to a crime for which they had escaped justice would be denied a permit.

People without high school diplomas or GED might be required to demonstrate that they could read and comprehend all relevant laws and statutes, as well as the manual for the type of gun they wished to purchase.

Anyone diagnosed as a child with ADHD might require an anger management class before being allowed to own a gun. Anyone with a misdemeanor record, or juvenile record that was not in itself a barrier to gun ownership, but was the sort of offense that demonstrated poor impulse control, like "road rage" that did not escalate past verbal assault, might also be required to take an anger management class.

There should be a database of gun owners, and a database of people who commit "impulse control" type infractions, as well as any kind of violent crime, even ones where a gun isn't involved. Gun ownership should be suspended as long as a person in on parole, probation, house-arrest, doing community service, or actually serving time for any of those crimes, plus any extra time a judge wants to tack on for punitive reasons.

[drstrange169]

"We've completely dismantled the mental health system in this country..."

Sadly, not just your country, mental health across the world is an issue that needs to be addressed with an ever more urgent priority.

[Errata]

On that: if any jurisdiction decided on a test for gun permit, requiring a person to meet with a doctor, NY, psychologist or therapist, I hope that the first thing that would happen is that a committee would sit down and discuss exactly what they were looking for, and why.

Here's some for instances:

They would be looking for undiagnosed mental illnesses, like depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, because of the high rate of suicide among those groups. Someone who seemed to meet a diagnostic category might be told to seek further treatment if he still wanted to pursue gun possession, which is not the same as ordering treatment.

Any active alcoholic or drug addict would be denied a permit, but someone who could demonstrate sobriety over a long period of time would be reconsidered. Anyone who confessed to a crime for which they had escaped justice would be denied a permit.

People without high school diplomas or GED might be required to demonstrate that they could read and comprehend all relevant laws and statutes, as well as the manual for the type of gun they wished to purchase.

Anyone diagnosed as a child with ADHD might require an anger management class before being allowed to own a gun. Anyone with a misdemeanor record, or juvenile record that was not in itself a barrier to gun ownership, but was the sort of offense that demonstrated poor impulse control, like "road rage" that did not escalate past verbal assault, might also be required to take an anger management class.

There should be a database of gun owners, and a database of people who commit "impulse control" type infractions, as well as any kind of violent crime, even ones where a gun isn't involved. Gun ownership should be suspended as long as a person in on parole, probation, house-arrest, doing community service, or actually serving time for any of those crimes, plus any extra time a judge wants to tack on for punitive reasons.

And yet none of these tests would have identified the majority of mass shooters, or even simple murderers. On the other hand, give people in someone's life to the right to veto gun ownership, and I imagine every single one of them would have been blacklisted. Except the Oregon shooter because some people are just clearly stupid.

[Ally]

The Hitler thing is a bad example. Jews already had a lousy record when it came to armed resistance.

What the Jews do or do not do to defend themselves is irrelevant. The point is what the government chose to do. And what they chose to do was outlaw a specific class from owning, manufacturing or dealing in weapons and then they began a systematic campaign to annihilate that exact group.

And the initial laws banning guns were not made by the Nazis, but by the previous government trying to remove power from the Nazis.

There were no laws banning guns or gun ownership. There were gun laws, in essence of a similar breed to what we have today already in America. It was only the Jews and only under the nazis who were outright prohibited from owning and dealing in arms as a class of people.

And while the guy on Piers Morgan (who was a legitimate guest, since he put forth the notion that Piers Morgan needed to be deported. It doesn't make him a respectable guest, but it made him the logical one) clearly has some screws loose, he isn't mentally ill.

Really? And you know this because you've had access to his psychiatric profile?

There's a difference. Alex Jones is not rational. But that doesn't mean he would register on any test as having a mental illness. Crazy comes in many flavors.

Exactly. Crazy comes in many flavors. The key word there is "crazy". The gun laws do not state that a person is denied if they have a narrow category of clearly identified and labeled mental illness as you would consider an "approved" mental illness. By and large they state something along the lines of "mental defect" or "danger to self or others". It does not say they have to register on some specific test as having a clearly defined diagnosis. The category for those deemed mentally unfit is left broad and Alex Jones could absolutely qualify for it.

[RivkahChaya]

And yet none of these tests would have identified the majority of mass shooters, or even simple murderers. On the other hand, give people in someone's life to the right to veto gun ownership, and I imagine every single one of them would have been blacklisted. Except the Oregon shooter because some people are just clearly stupid.

That was a very sketchy f'rinstance. I am in no way qualified to decide who gets a gun and who does not. I don't necessarily think people's families should be empowered to deny them constitutional rights, either, though. The next thing, we'll have people saying "Hey, my brother isn't competent to vote."

I think a group of people, who are, say, all members of the American Psychiatric Association, the Board of neurologists, certified and practicing MSWs, possibly emergency room doctors, research psychologists, and various other people highly qualified to determine what sort of combination of interview and written test could weed out the most "ticking bombs," with the fewest false positives, and let them do it. Put the process through lots of testing to make sure it is both valid* and reliable**, and make sure there is an appeals process, plus the possibility of retesting after a certain amount of time, which can be shortened by things such as anger management classes, or a full psychiatric work-up, then let's go. Grandfather in all current gun owners, but if any of them have "incidents," such as threatening a neighbor, or shooting a gun in a residential area, even if no on is hurt, they should have to start their licensing process again.

*"Valid" and **"reliable" have specific meanings in this context. A valid test actually measures what it is supposed to measure. A reliable test comes up with the same, or very similar results under the same circumstances, every time.

[Errata]

Well here's an example. Remember Heaven's Gate? Well it was no mystery that it was a cult, and was going to end in mass suicide. And yet no one in that cult would have been evaluated as a danger, or in any way lacking in the ability to make decisions for themselves based on their membership in that cult. No one without a previous diagnosis has ever been found insane due to their association with dangerous people or groups. No one but a crazy person joins a suicide cult. But no court in the land can adjudicate someone as incompetent, and no doctor in this country can justify a psychiatric hold based on being in a suicide cult. Someone joins a modern equivalent of the Branch Davidians, and they aren't crazy until a battery of tests and preferably a previous diagnosis says they are. Without an ailment that is specifically defined in the DSM-IV, there is no legal leg to stand on to take away their guns. And you want it that way Ally. People could be alarmed by your apparent callous indifference to life and the suffering of others. Including any psychiatrist who would have to interview you to approve gun ownership. You don't want them to take your gun away because your attitude makes hem nervous.

As for Alex Jones, no. I haven't seen his medical record. But I am absolutely certain he has never been diagnosed with a mental illness, just as I am absolutely certain that despite that, he has been treated for one. His rants on SSRIs are somewhat legendary, and clearly he has had personal experience with them. As though a GP gave him a prescription and he hated the way they make him feel. But If he had ever been diagnosed with a mental illness, he wouldn't try to foist the blame for gun crimes on the mentally ill. He is nothing if not self serving, and if he had a diagnosis he would be blaming something else entirely. As to whether he actually has a mental illness, I tend to think he doesn't. I think he was born and bred distrusting the government, and it is not uncommon for NRA members to be suckers for every conspiracy theory that crops up. I think he's just one of those guys. He clearly has issues, but who doesn't. I'm pretty sure his issues are freudian in nature.

[Hunter]

... it is not uncommon for NRA members to be suckers for every conspiracy theory that crops up.

That's a bunch of bullshit.

[RivkahChaya]

That's a bunch of bullshit.

I haven't seen stats on it, so it may not be true, but it does reflect my personal experience. In fact, there even seems to be a direct relationship between the number of guns a person has, and the likelihood that they are to believe in either a conspiracy theories, or something conspiracy-adjacent, like that the "face on Mars" was made by an intelligent civilization, or Bigfoot exists somewhere in the wilderness of Washington State-Oregon-British Columbia (but for some reason doesn't like either baked potatos or Rice-a-roni).

Errata, statutes in some states may now specifically preclude only people with a DSM-IV diagnosis, but there's no reason for that. Amendment 2 doesn't say "except for felons, probationers, and people with a DSM-IV diagnosis."

This is why an objective test for "constituting a threat based on psychological state" could become a standard. The police force and military turn away people all the time whose psychological state is questionable, for some reason, without making a DSM-IV diagnosis. Heck, if you tell someone in Military Entrance Processing that you want to join the Army because you think you'll get a kick out of carrying a rifle around all the time, they will probably show the door right there, but that isn't a DSM-IV diagnosis.

The application for a gun permit (not a hunting license, a handgun permit, which includes target pistols) in the state of Indiana asks if you have ever been under the care of a Psychiatrist, or other medical doctor for psychiatric reasons (that probably isn't the exact wording), and give you a few lines to explain. If it was when you were ten, and your mother died of cancer, and you went for grief counseling, you'll get your permit. If it was last week, to refill your Haldol, you will probably be rejected on the spot. If you were in rehab last year, but have been clean, they may want a doctor's note to that effect, and Indiana may have some standard number of months you have to be clean, or may make you submit to random testing, that I don't know.

I do know that if you lie, and then later shoot someone, you technically did not have a gun permit, and your gun possession was a felony, and therefore so was any action that came as a result, so if you lie on your permit application, and kill someone in what would otherwise clearly be self-defense, you could end up being charged with felony murder. You probably won't, if it was very clearly self-defense, but if the picture was even a little muddy, you might be in a mess of trouble. At any rate, you will face the maximum fine for illegal weapons possession, and possibly assault charges. Also, fraud, and falsification of documents. All those things would have been hand-waved, probably, if you'd gone into the sheriff's office a day earlier, turned in the gun, confessed, and promised not to do it again.

[Errata]

That's a bunch of bullshit.

It's not bullshit. It's not the norm, but it is not uncommon. And there is a very good reason for that. The NRA routinely gets set up with all kinds of oddball organizations. They don't sponsor them, but if you go to a Minute Men function, the NRA is there. If you go to a series of lectures on how the US government blew up the World Trade Center, the NRA is there. They are even at UFO conventions and comic book conventions. The NRA is not some puppy dealing organization who wants everyone to be happy. They are a lobby. A very powerful one. Their business is to get people to vote the way their donors want them to vote. Which requires vast amounts of money. Which means they need an income. And quite a few gun owners don't join the NRA. They think it doesn't apply to them, they don't like the NRA, they don't like lobbies, whatever. The easiest gun owners to recruit are the ones who are afraid. Guys who think they have been abducted by aliens, or that their government is out to get them are afraid. And big donors. Now the NRA has in the past engaged in their own fear campaigns, and still stretches certain truths to suit their need. Now, so does Susan G. Koman and Save the Whales, because that's the business. But I will say that it screws their credibility about wanting responsible gun owners when they send a representative to a survivalist supply demonstration weekend to sign up guys waiting for the end times.

I don't have a problem with the NRA. I have a problem with a whole bunch of people who are seemingly of the opinion that the NRA is anything other than a business whose goal is to sell fear and paranoia. Because happy gun owners who love their neighbors and have a positive view of the world don't give the NRA money.

[RivkahChaya]

so does Susan G. Koman and Save the Whales, because that's the business. But I will say that it screws their credibility about wanting responsible gun owners when they send a representative to a survivalist supply demonstration weekend to sign up guys waiting for the end times.

Don't get me started on Susan G. Komen. I was once buying something in the dairy section, and some woman was buying all that yogurt with the pink lids, where you can put them in envelopes, stamp them, send them back to the manufacturer, and Dannon, or Yoplait, or whoever, will send 10 cents for each one to the Susan G. Komen fund. She was complaining that they were out of some flavor in the pink lids.

I said "You know, you can buy whatever yogurt you want, or none at all, and just send a donation to the Komen fund." She looked at me like that was crazy talk.

I wonder, if I sent the correct brand of lid, during the correct time period, but it happened not to be pink, if Dannon (or whoever) would really withhold the dime?

[Errata]

Don't get me started on Susan G. Komen. I was once buying something in the dairy section, and some woman was buying all that yogurt with the pink lids, where you can put them in envelopes, stamp them, send them back to the manufacturer, and Dannon, or Yoplait, or whoever, will send 10 cents for each one to the Susan G. Komen fund. She was complaining that they were out of some flavor in the pink lids.

I said "You know, you can buy whatever yogurt you want, or none at all, and just send a donation to the Komen fund." She looked at me like that was crazy talk.

I wonder, if I sent the correct brand of lid, during the correct time period, but it happened not to be pink, if Dannon (or whoever) would really withhold the dime?

Oh yeah Yoplait got into a lot of trouble with that one. They set a maximum of their charitable donation to $50,000, but didn't print that anywhere, so people were buying their yogurt to specifically support Komen and Yoplait had long since stopped donating.

My thing with Komen is that if you listen to them, most women are going to fall ill with this form of cancer that has about as much understanding and funding as AIDS did in 1982. The truth is it's the highest funded form of cancer research out there, and the 17th most common cancer. And my cousin died of breast cancer, but not because it wasn't understood. Because once any cancer reaches lymph nodes, theres nothing to stop it from spreading systematically. Breast cancer research isn't going to solve that problem. Plain old cancer research will. But there is no sharing of funding. So we have incredibly advanced methods to detect the 17th most common cancer, but nothing to do about it that isn't done for the 16 cancers that are more common. Or the hundred or so that are less common. Basically, women with breast cancer get to contemplate their own death for about two years longer than a lung cancer patient.