Shooting at CT elementary school leaves at least 27 dead, 18 of them children

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Just ban guns.  Make every single gun ing illegal.  Lets become a civilized country.  It's 2012 not 1791.
I want to be free to leave my house in the morning without being in danger of being shot by some gun nut.  Respect my freedom please (and no, I am not going to buy a gun to protect myself because I am only protected when none of you have a gun)!  I don't want to live in a society of fear where everyone carries a gun.

The can't pass the AWB and you expect them to ban all guns?

[Sbane]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it. 

Thank you.

Because changing the gun culture would be more effective. Many times you can't even tell if these people will snap. They may be angry, but not everyone is going to put an angry family member in a mental hospital. Better mental health care is key but it won't stop a lot of these attacks until it is too late.

By changing the gun culture I don't mean banning them. That would be counterproductive. There needs to be a societal change, not a legal change. There shouldn't be so many goddamn guns out there in easy reach of these crazies!

Of course we would just see more knife attacks. We also need to take a look at how the media covers these things. I think that is also a big reason why these people feel the need to do something so brazen as attack little children or moviegoers. They want to be famous, and the media will gladly do it for them.

[Sbane]

Conservatives who have been pleading for the conversation to change from guns to mental healthcare, did you know Obamacare mandated all insurance plans cover mental health services? What do you think of that? Repeal it?

[minionofmidas]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it. 

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

[© tweed]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it. 

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

except we know that the insurance companies would make a bunch of money on it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

[Paul Kemp]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Do people really not review at least the last page of a thread before posting?

This is worth taking a look at: http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Do people really not review at least the last page of a thread before posting?

This is worth taking a look at: http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

Stop it, Mr. Kemp......he's not an internet detective like others here.

[Paul Kemp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/agents-visit-conn-gun-shops-after-school-massacre

[rejectamenta]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it.  

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

Making sure people have access to affordable, efficient psychiatric care is part of the puzzle, but it's a small part. I don't know why it's suddenly been christened the silver bullet in massacre prevention, and as you said, nobody can seem to outline specifics beyond "make mental health services better!"

We're doing ourselves a disservice by thinking these killings are only perpetrated by generically and predictably insane people.

[© tweed]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it. 

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

Making sure people have access to affordable, efficient psychiatric care is part of the puzzle, but it's a small part. I don't know why it's suddenly been christened the silver bullet in massacre prevention, and as you said, nobody can seem to outline specifics beyond "make mental health services better!"

Americans like the idea of being able to diagnose and treat something.  see addiction.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it. 

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

Making sure people have access to affordable, efficient psychiatric care is part of the puzzle, but it's a small part. I don't know why it's suddenly been christened the silver bullet in massacre prevention, and as you said, nobody can seem to outline specifics beyond "make mental health services better!"

We're doing ourselves a disservice by thinking these killings are only perpetrated by generically and predictably insane people.

Perhaps because 100% of the people who massacre schools/public places have major mental illness that obviously hasn't been treated.

It is no small part.  It is the biggest piece to the puzzle.  The best way to prevent such massacres is to prevent the desire to carry them out.  Beyond that, removing the vehicle to carry out such a massacre must be removed.

I think the reason it has become a "silver bullet", is because it is hardly ever discussed in the context of these shootings.  Maybe because we chalk it up to teen angst when one teen goes and shoots a bunch of his classmates.  But who kills 20 small children?  Somebody who had major mental health problems that were untreated. 

Perhaps I am naive, but I'd venture to guess that if this Lanza fellow had been properly diagnosed and was receiving medical as well as psychiatric care, those 27 people would still be alive, and he'd be living a more productive life.

If you simply took the guns away.. he'd be stewing in his own misery/anger/sociopathic tendencies just waiting to get his hands on someone else's guns.

[rejectamenta]

You don't think it's a little too easy to label all spree killers undiagnosed head cases? I agree that proper health care would've impacted the outcome of Newtown and V-Tech more heavily than gun control, but what about Aurora, the Amish school shooting, Columbine, and even the OKC bombings? Those were all carried out by people of varying mental states, but none severe enough to suggest a potential problem down the road without heaping doses of hindsight.

I didn't mean to suggest that gun control was the catch-all solution either, or that psychiatric services were insignificant. It's a multi-faceted problem, perhaps largely cultural, and trivializing it by clinging to one aspect or the other as the Eureka moment isn't going to stop the next guy.

[Paul Kemp]

It's a multi-faceted problem, perhaps largely cultural, and trivializing it by clinging to one aspect or the other as the Eureka moment isn't going to stop the next guy.

Exactly.

[Ban my account ffs!]

You don't think it's a little too easy to label all spree killers undiagnosed head cases? I agree that proper health care would've impacted the outcome of Newtown and V-Tech more heavily than gun control, but what about Aurora, the Amish school shooting, Columbine, and even the OKC bombings? Those were all carried out by people of varying mental states, but none severe enough to suggest a potential problem down the road without heaping doses of hindsight.

I didn't mean to suggest that gun control was the catch-all solution either, or that psychiatric services were insignificant. It's a multi-faceted problem, perhaps largely cultural, and trivializing it by clinging to one aspect or the other as the Eureka moment isn't going to stop the next guy.

A lot of mental illness goes undetected.  People are good at masking it.  The Columbine shooters obviously had problems.  The problem with a lot of mental illness is that the people in question are aware of it by the fact that others begin noticing it.  And as a defense mechanism, they mask it because mental illness has a big social stigma.

Another problem is that the mentally ill will go to great lengths to deny they are mentally ill at all and resent the help that is offered.  Instead, they just stew in their own mental illness until they finally have a breakdown.

How many people kill themselves...  and everybody close to them is saying "I never suspected a thing... if only I had...."  There is no question that the person who committed suicide had major mental issues that needed sorting out... but they suffered in silence.

These shootings were planned affairs.  The only type of a situation I can see where mental illness might not be a big issue is if the person did not intend to kill anybody, but the situation got out of their "control" (like a hostage situation).... or someone is in a rage, like those who get laid off and then shoot up their workplace in a fit of resentment and rage.

These massacres aren't like that.

So my point is that psychiatric/mental healthcare is a big part of it, and it will likely be the most difficult to really do something about.  But it has to be a big part of any debate we have.

[Benj]

Why is it most liberals seem to focus on gun control, and gloss over better mental health treatment, as the most effective solution to this problem?   They seem to hardly even mention it.  

Because nobody - literally nobody - knows what that would even mean.

At the very least, make it much easier to involuntarily commit people. Basically, roll back the Reagan-era "reforms" on mental health care that made it basically impossible to institutionalize people who hadn't already committed serious crimes. (Those reforms are often blamed on Reagan but were certainly also pushed for by congressional Democrats--there's plenty of blame to go around on 1980s politicians.)

[7,052,770]

Perhaps I am naive, but I'd venture to guess that if this Lanza fellow had been properly diagnosed and was receiving medical as well as psychiatric care, those 27 people would still be alive, and he'd be living a more productive life.

If you simply took the guns away.. he'd be stewing in his own misery/anger/sociopathic tendencies just waiting to get his hands on someone else's guns.

Or we could do both as a fail-safe?

[Beet]

The Colorado shooter was receiving psychiatric care and it didn't stop him.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Colorado shooter was receiving psychiatric care and it didn't stop him.

Which is why my previous argument that gun control measures that keep guns away from the mentally ill are a good idea.

[Vosem]

And another thought is the idea of Herostratus -- many shooters are deprived of attention and do it in order to gain fame (like Herostratus, way back in the day). It's struck me how several school shootings have been foiled in just the few days after this event, but prior to it there hadn't been a school shooting for years. If they received less media attention, attention-seekers and suggestive people wouldn't end up going on shooting sprees -- leaving only the truly mentally ill and people with political motivations (ie, terrorists).

I've already outlined the problems with increased gun control (as I see them), but I don't think expanding mental health care is the solution, either. Trying to seek out people who are proficient at hiding their problems would result in many, many false positives, whose lives could then be completely ruined at a diagnosis. It's an extremely imprecise science. (Also, being descended from Soviet immigrants, I have a bit of an irrational tendency to correlate "mentally ill" with "political dissident" -- it has a very negative connotation to me). That said, in the case mentioned above, it's a travesty that people like Michael are left to relatives instead of professionals. But we can't allow ourselves to go overboard with this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Overboard?

With respect, overboard is when children can't EXPECT to be safe from gun-wielding nutcases in their classroom.

And a reasonable response seems to be a mix of "let's just hope for the best" and "we need MORE guns"? Now, I don't understand why ANYONE needs a high-capacity automatic or semi-automatic weapon... I guess I never will... but putting the paranoid "tyranny lurking around every corner" BS aside, is ensuring that only people who are fully fit to have lethal weapons actually have them... really such a terrible thing? really? Oh, and I'd love an answer that doesn't involve 'gangbangers' and Mexican drug lords.

Look at it this way... you have a right to bear arms, and while I think it's a relic of post-revolutionary times, it's not going anywhere. But is the execution of a right, a blanket concept? Or should responsibilities be assigned to ensure that it is carried out responsibly and with maximum public benefit?

If it were up to me...
- Gun licences for individuals
- Mental health screenings and background checks
- Maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds
- semi-automatic weapon ban
- maximum firearms per person
- mandatory training at time of licence...

Most people go through more loops to rent a DVD or vote... it's (and I'm sorry to the 2nd amendment fetishists) utterly insane.

[Lief 🗽]

Obviously we just need to apply a 1791 standard to the 2nd amendment. If the weapon existed when the amendment was ratified, you're allowed to own as many of them as you want. If it was only invented after 1791, it's illegal to own one.

Checkmate, strict constructionists.

(Realistically though, a ban on semi-automatics (automatics are already banned I'm pretty sure) and magazines with more than a handful of bullets, seems sensible.)

[k-onmmunist]

It is somewhat ironic that some folks that staunchly support drug legalization because "people will get drugs anyway and prohibition doesn't work" also believe that prohibition on guns will work well.

guns make you a far greater risk to other people than drugs.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The Colorado shooter was receiving psychiatric care and it didn't stop him.

Which is why my previous argument that gun control measures that keep guns away from the mentally ill are a good idea.

Except that there is no reliable way of measuring if someone is mentally ill or not and in many of these cases, the spree killer's 'mental illness' is only apparent after he (it's always a he) has already gone on the rampage. In practice, such a law would either require investment on a level that isn't even comtemplatable (Do you want everyone to have their own personal shrink? On the government dime, too!) or, infinitely more likely, just an excuse to go after 'Weirdos'.

Also what Lewis and Tweed said.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, there have certainly been cases in which the godawful state of mental health 'treatment' in the U.S has clearly contributed to a massacre (I dimly recall that being the case in the VA Tech thing anyway; though I might be remembering wrongly), but that's about as far as you can go. Most of the rest of the time we are generally talking of after the fact diagnoses, and often of the 'well, you'd have to be mentally ill to do a thing like this' variety. Which is about as useful as a chocolate blast furnace.

In any case, most people (and by 'most' I mean 'in excess of 99 per cent') people with mental health problems are no more dangerous than the rest of society. That includes the minority of cases that are things more obviously 'scary' than depression and the like. I don't see how increasing the stigma - something that is utterly ludicrious given how common mental health problems are - helps anyone. It certainly wouldn't help to prevent these regular little massacres; the violent punctuation marks of contemporary American society.