Yet Another One....

[Parson]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Oh, I realize that's a good part of it, but there are sensible ways around most of that. The main point is to attempt to learn from and to educate people about the warning signs and how to defuse such situations before they hit that point. It won't always work, no; but I'd say it's a damn' sight better than what we've been doing so far....

I agree J.D. If the signs were well known it could be approached like child abuse where many people (myself included) are mandatory reporters if they see anything that looks like it might be child abuse. If the signs were well known than there could be a whole group of people who would be legally compelled to report suspicious behavior.

>> Even as I write this it sounds like "Big Brother" [1984 Not the inane show], but at least to some degree a "Big Brother" is necessary. Genesis would have us believe so: "Am I my brother's keeper?" with the implied answer of "yes" you are responsible.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Nice point, Parson, but in the UK, a motorcyclist riding without a helmet would be arrested before he could blink.

Probably proving that the UK is not at heart a revolutionary society. Any law even a smart and good one like wearing helmets as you ride your motorcycle can not be enforced unless 97% of the people will follow it without being arrested or ticketed. With the rebel mindset of many motorcycle riders wearing a helmet labels you as a [shudder] conformist and not the rebel in whose image a Harley is marketed.

To return to the point at hand, I don't believe that gun control, as smart as it might be, will work in the US. I would be interested in knowing about gun control in Australia, a country that most Americans see as more like us than just about anywhere else.

[Rosemary]

A couple of years ago there was an amnesty on unlicensed firearms. However, it is still very easy to obtain almost any type of firearm on the 'Black Market'.

Personally, I don't think these attacks in the schools should be shown on the television or in the papers. So many just like to do 'copy cat' acts and this is only encouraging them, in my opinion.

I have no problem with a 'Big Brother'. If it stops any kind of criminal behaviour then bring it on! I know I won't be doing anything illegal so it won't worry me and I shall feel a little safer if the 'criminals' are being watched. I don't agree with the 'do gooders' when it comes to violence and crime.

[Parson]

Rosemary,

Thanks. It does sound like what would happen here in the U.S.of A.

Parson

[Happy Joe]

There are few defenses against the acts of madmen!

Legislation against the law abiding will make no difference in the acts of the insane, or the criminally inclined.

I'm with Rosemary; I don't believe that theses acts, or their aftermath should be shown in the media. The 15 minutes of fame seems only to incite the copy cats. Instead, I suggest that the perpetrators (indeed, all terrorists) not be named and their pictures not shown and they be resoundingly castigated as idiots, madmen and the criminals that they are in the media.

I do wonder if this like many mass killings can be marked down to mind altering medications. Something not emphasized by the media is that many of these killers are withdrawing from prescribed antidepressants.

The cause of these incidents needs to be clearly stated; these people are insane.

Frequently they have been identified, medicated then released back into society with only a hope guaranteeing that their medication will continue to work and that they will continue taking the medication. The failure here is not one of controlling potential weapon access (this is patently; not possible), but a failure to identify and permanently restrain the insane individual.

Enjoy!

[mosaix]

People who shoot other people aren't necessarily insane - soldiers do it all the time and a lot of the time they are regraded as heroes. People kill each other over minor disputes and over such things as relationships gone wrong.

Insanity is not the excuse.

The point is when someone wants to kill another person over something minor or imagined, or even over something serious, how easy do you want that to be?

The harder it is to kill someone, the less likely it is to happen. The longer it takes to find a method of killing someone the more likley the perpetrator is going to calm down and change their mind.

If my next door neighbour is in a bad mood and takes a dislike to where I have parked my car (and suffers temporary insanity if you like) and decides to try and kill me, I would prefer that he didn't have a gun. If he chooses another weapon, say a knife, he has to get up close to kill me and I have a much better chance of escape and whilst he's pursuing me he may come to his senses or I may find a policeman.

Also a gun is a much more 'remote' and dehumanising method of killing. For some, shooting someone 100 yards away would be much more difficult than looking someone in the eyes when you did it.

[j. d. worthington]

Sorry; the "these people are insane" idea is -- and I don't mean to offend here, but it's the truth -- utterly simplistic. Very little in human interaction is that simple, and when we dismiss it so easily by putting it into such a vague, broad category that is itself ill- or un-defined... then we just perpetuate the ignorance that allows such situations to arise. Simple responses to complex problems never solve the problem. They may remove that particular outbreak, but the underlying issues continue to fester, until they break forth again, often with even more horrendous results....

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by mosaix

People who shoot other people aren't necessarily insane - soldiers do it all the time and a lot of the time they are regraded as heroes. People kill each other over minor disputes and over such things as relationships gone wrong.

Insanity is not the excuse.

The point is when someone wants to kill another person over something minor or imagined, or even over something serious, how easy do you want that to be?

The harder it is to kill someone, the less likely it is to happen. The longer it takes to find a method of killing someone the more likley the perpetrator is going to calm down and change their mind.

If my next door neighbour is in a bad mood and takes a dislike to where I have parked my car (and suffers temporary insanity if you like) and decides to try and kill me, I would prefer that he didn't have a gun. If he chooses another weapon, say a knife, he has to get up close to kill me and I have a much better chance of escape and whilst he's pursuing me he may come to his senses or I may find a policeman.

Also a gun is a much more 'remote' and dehumanising method of killing. For some, shooting someone 100 yards away would be much more difficult than looking someone in the eyes when you did it.

These acts are premeditated. They can get the guns on the black market in the time they spent planning. Checking farther back in their history for mental illness would have helped in this case. Also perhaps a way to compel those who are no longer a threat to themselves or others because of effective medication to have to see a professional regularly for reevaluation and to see that they are taking their meds or risk possible commitment. Kind of mental probation or parole.

[Quokka]

I'm suprised that the legislation relating to restricting gun ownership from people with a history of interacting with mental health services hasn't been challanged. Surely if someone has not committed a crime and is judged to be of a sane enough mind to live independantly, drive a car, be employed etc then to retstrict them from gun ownership based on the fact that they have previously had contact with mental health services is contrary to their constitutional rights?

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by Quokka

I'm suprised that the legislation relating to restricting gun ownership from people with a history of interacting with mental health services hasn't been challanged. Surely if someone has not committed a crime and is judged to be of a sane enough mind to live independantly, drive a car, be employed etc then to retstrict them from gun ownership based on the fact that they have previously had contact with mental health services is contrary to their constitutional rights?

I believe that it would be based upon commitment to an institution; the person has been shown to be a danger to himself or others due to mental illness. Mental illness in itself would not preclude gun ownership. However, requiring that a formerly commited individual show that they are no longer a threat to themselves or others could be a requirement.

[Happy Joe]

Let me get this straight ... people here are actually suggesting that mass murders are in full and proper control of their faculties? (I am not saying all murders, crimes of passion and other murders (robbery) are a not necessarily insanity..agreed) (This thread is about mass murder by a diagnosed person with mental issues, is it not)?

If a person decides to take out a school yard full of children, or a restaurant full of people or everyone they see in an area of a university they are obviously fully rational and acting within the rules of society? (Just because the crime was premeditated does not make the person sane).
I contend they are not sane as demonstrated by the irrationality of their actions.
It may be simplistic but it is not burying the problem through obfuscation (or intent to promote a political agenda).

A very large proportion of the time these people have a history of mental deficiency and are withdrawing from prescribed medication. These are facts. To reduce mass murder we should look at the things they have in common. Not the results of the murders not the means employed (any person who pays attention in high school physics and chemistry is has the knowledge to become a mad bomber; the tools for insane rampage are all around (automobiles for example)). To assume that restricting the means without addressing the causes would in any way affect the outcome is what I would view as simplistic (besides being impractical).

The fact that more often than not these people are wandering around loose disturbs me much more than the shotgun in my neighbors closet (he is not insane but a (relatively) rational person). The intent of people to generate more victims through restricting the means of self defense disturbs me even further. (Oh! we know the wolves are out there; so lets cut the horns off of our sheep to assure that they have no defense (and let us pad their hooves to make certain the wolves do not get hurt)).

As a point of interest people with a history of mental illness are restricted (along with felons) from the possession of firearms in most (probably all) of the US. However, laws and prohibition have been shown ineffective in controlling behavior within a society.

Enjoy!

[mosaix]

The thing is Joe, in all these incidents nobody ever seems to get around to getting a gun and defending themselves, do they?

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Happy Joe

Let me get this straight ... people here are actually suggesting that mass murders are in full and proper control of their faculties? (I am not saying all murders, crimes of passion and other murders (robbery) are a not necessarily insanity..agreed) (This thread is about mass murder by a diagnosed person with mental issues, is it not)?

Not entirely. While such a crime was what got me to post the thread, it has a broader focus -- the growing number of this sort of incident in (especially, it would seem, American) society and the things that lie behind them, as well as possible actions to avert them.

If a person decides to take out a school yard full of children, or a restaurant full of people or everyone they see in an area of a university they are obviously fully rational and acting within the rules of society?

There's a world of difference between being insane and "fully rational and acting within the rules of society". For one thing, very few people are fully rational -- I've yet to meet one, and I'm certainly not... I've definitely got my irrational side which prompts me to do stupid things (sometimes egregious ones) now and again. And "acting with the rules of society"? What about the number of times one side in a war has destroyed school children, or innocent bystanders, because they either hadn't the time to pick-and-choose targets, or because they were "enemy" (this includes various religious wars through history). What about the villages destroyed in the course of war? I don't think you'd find anyone to agree with you that all the soldiers involved were insane. And doing so in a non-military situation may be deemed "insane", but is it any more (or less) so by dint of being a civilian action?

No, they aren't necessarily insane. They may not (or in some cases may) be -- by both clinical and legal definitions -- sane, but nonetheless dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who are under tremendous stresses mental and physical that, were even one small detail in the situation altered, very well might not take it to that level... and understanding what drives such people to such actions (externally and internally) may help save lives, including their own. It would be a damn' sight more sensible to find ways to avert such situations from growing over time, and to help such people find solutions to the problems that make them a ticking time-bomb... both for their sake, and that of the society around them.

A very large proportion of the time these people have a history of mental deficiency and are withdrawing from prescribed medication. These are facts. To reduce mass murder we should look at the things they have in common. Not the results of the murders not the means employed (any person who pays attention in high school physics and chemistry is has the knowledge to become a mad bomber; the tools for insane rampage are all around (automobiles for example)). To assume that restricting the means without addressing the causes would in any way affect the outcome is what I would view as simplistic (besides being impractical).

And here I'm in much closer agreement with you... I think it's time to examine and address the causes without prior judgement on what they may be. If either your view or mine turns out to be erroneous based upon the facts, then adjust to the actual causes, and work on finding ways to alleviate or remove the underlying cause(s).

[Quokka]

I've no real problem with the laws, in fact from what little I know of it I'd support it. I'm just curious in a country that links gun ownership so strongly with constitutional rights where such a law would stand from a purely legal standpoint.

It's only a partial solution, it would have affected this person but I'd guess (and it is only a guess) that if you look at the last 10 (or a random 10) that less than half would have been institutionalised. Of course if it even stops one it's worth it.

Sure it's possible to make a bomb or use other methods but the harder you make it the less people who do it and the bigger your chances of catching people in the planning/ set-up stages. There have been two cases over here in the last few days where children have confronted teachers with knifes, had they had access to guns there's a fair chance that would have been their weapon of choice.

In the end as horrble as these incidents are, statistically they're a very small percentage of gun related deaths and unfortunately the laws can't be made for the 'reasonable' person but have to try cover those who don't think or don't care. So maybe it's not the person with a shotgun in their cuboard that worries me but the person who keeps a loaded handgun in a purse or under a bed does.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by mosaix

The thing is Joe, in all these incidents nobody ever seems to get around to getting a gun and defending themselves, do they?

When they do, it's not news.