This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Newtown Shooter Had Asperger Syndrome, And Some US Gun Facts
Update: The focus now shifts to the mother, the first casualty of her son's murderous rampage, who was a "big, big gun fan" as the NYT explains, and who went target shooting with her children, one of whom had Asperger's.
From the NYT:
She was “a big, big gun fan” who went target shooting with her children, according to friends. She enjoyed craft beers, jazz and landscaping. She was generous to strangers, but also high-strung, as if she were holding herself together.
Nancy Lanza was the first victim in a massacre carried out on Friday by her son Adam Lanza, 20, who shot her dead with a gun apparently drawn from her own collection, then drove her car to Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he killed 26 people, 20 of them small children, officials said.
At craft beer tastings on Tuesday evenings, he recalled, she liked to talk about her gun collection.
“She had several different guns,” he said. “I don’t know how many. She would go target shooting with her kids.”
Law enforcement officials said they believed that the guns were acquired lawfully and registered.
* * *
She was “a big, big gun fan,” he added on his Web site.
Read on here
* * *
As we reported last night, buried inside the NYT biopic of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza was arguably one of the most important missing pieces in the story, at least so far, which could provide clues into partially explaining yesterday's tragic loss of young life, namely that the 20 year old man suffered from Asperger Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism (two conditions which are being merged in the upcoming update of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) manual of mental disorders), which has been traditionally associated with social communication difficulties, including flat affect, and one which in some clinical studies has been shown to have a causal link to violence. In other words, in addition to the surge in the debate over national gun control and access limitations (ignoring that the perpetrator of the biggest school mass murder in US history - the Bath School disaster - used openly purchased dynamite and no guns, also ignoring that in the US there are roughly 300 million firearms), perhaps there should also be a broad discussion as to the risks of social misadoption of children with autism and other social and behavioral disorders.
He was an honors student who lived in a prosperous neighborhood with his mother, a well-liked woman who enjoyed hosting dice games and decorating the house for the holidays.
Now Adam Lanza is suspected of killing his mother and then gunning down more than two dozen people, 20 of them children, at a Connecticut grade school before taking his own life.
The 20-year-old may have suffered from a personality disorder, law enforcement officials said.
The New York Times reported Saturday morning that several people told the newspaper that Lanza had Asperger’s syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism.
The Times reported Lanza did not have a Facebook page and did not pose for a high school yearbook picture.
He was described as socially awkward and was known in high school as “intelligent, but nervous and fidgety, spitting his words out, as if having to speak up were painful.”
Investigators were trying to learn as much as possible about Lanza and questioned his older brother, who is not believed to have any involvement in the rampage.
Lanza killed his mother at their home before driving her car to Sandy Hook Elementary School and — armed with at least two handguns — carried out the massacre, officials said.
A third weapon, a .223-caliber rifle, was found in the car, and more guns were found inside the school.
So far, authorities have not spoken publicly of any possible motive. Witnesses said the shooter didn’t utter a word.
Catherine Urso, who was attending a vigil Friday evening in Newtown, Conn., said her college-age son knew the killer and remembered him for his alternative style.
“He just said he was very thin, very remote and was one of the goths,” she said.
* * *
Adam Lanza’s older brother, 24-year-old Ryan Lanza of Hoboken, N.J., was being questioned, a law enforcement official said. He told authorities that his brother was believed to suffer from a personality disorder, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record about the unfolding investigation.
The official did not elaborate, and it was unclear exactly what type of disorder he might have had.
Ryan Lanza had been extremely cooperative and was not under arrest or in custody, but investigators were still searching his computers and phone records. Ryan Lanza told law enforcement he had not been in touch with his brother since about 2010.
* * *
Adam Lanza attended Newtown High School, and several local news clippings from recent years mention his name among the school’s honor roll students.
And while much needed insight into the shooter's abnormal mental state is critical before passing judgment, the reality is that Lanza - who may well have been mentally disturbed - should certainly not have had access to the arsenal of weapons he ultimately used in perpetrating yesterday's tragedy. The much debated question, of course, that is already emerging is whose responsibility is it to limit such access: that of the individual, that of the closest family members, or that of the state, and if it is the latter, then the question becomes one of practical enforceability in a country where the second amendment is deeply engrained in the popular psychology, and where there are nearly as many guns as people.
Some more facts and figures - without opinions - on US weapons from justfacts.com
Introductory Notes
This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.
Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.
Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.
General Facts
Firearms are generally classified into three broad types: (1) handguns, (2) rifles, and (3) shotguns.[3] Rifles and shotguns are both considered "long guns."
A semi-automatic firearm fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled and automatically loads another bullet for the next pull of the trigger. A fully automatic firearm (sometimes called a "machine gun") fires multiple bullets with the single pull of the trigger.[4]
Ownership
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5]
Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7]
Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:
| Households With a Gun | Adults Owning a Gun | Adults Owning a Handgun | |
| Percentage | 40-45% | 30-34% | 17-19% |
| Number | 47-53 million | 70-80 million | 40-45 million |
A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership:
| Category |
Percentage Owning a Firearm |
| Households | 42% |
| Individuals | 30% |
| Male | 47% |
| Female | 13% |
| White | 33% |
| Nonwhite | 18% |
| Republican | 41% |
| Independent | 27% |
| Democrat | 23% |
In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons:
| Protection Against Crime | 67% |
| Target Shooting | 66% |
| Hunting | 41% |
Crime and Self-Defense
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]
Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."
Vulnerability to Violent Crime
At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.[23]
A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:
• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]
A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."[25]
Right-to-Carry Laws
Right-to-carry laws permit individuals who meet certain "minimally restrictive" criteria (such as completion of a background check and gun safety course) to carry concealed firearms in most public places.[95] Concealed carry holders must also meet the minimum federal requirements for gun ownership as detailed above.
Each state has its own laws regarding right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three main categories:
1) "shall-issue" states, where concealed carry permits are issued to all qualified applicants
2) "may-issue" states, where applicants must often present a reason for carrying a firearm to an issuing authority, who then decides based on his or her discretion whether the applicant will receive a permit
3) "no-issue" states, where concealed carry is generally forbidden
As of January 2012:
40 states are shall-issue:
| Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | Colorado |
| Florida | Georgia | Idaho | Indiana |
| Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana |
| Maine | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi |
| Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada |
| New Hampshire | New Mexico | North Carolina | North Dakota |
| Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania |
| Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee |
| Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia |
| Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming |
9 states are may-issue:
| Alabama | California | Connecticut | Delaware |
| Hawaii | Maryland | Massachusetts | New Jersey |
| New York |
Accidents
In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]
Fatal firearm accidents in 2007 by age groups:
| Age Group | Fatal Firearm Accidents | |
| Raw number | Portion of fatal accidents
from all causes |
|
| <1 yrs | 1 | 0.1% |
| 1-4 yrs | 18 | 1.1% |
| 5-9 yrs | 20 | 2.1% |
| 10-14 yrs | 26 | 2.1% |
| 15-24 yrs | 155 | 1.0% |
| 25-34 yrs | 94 | 0.6% |
| 35-44 yrs | 91 | 0.5% |
| 45-54 yrs | 82 | 0.4% |
| 55-64 yrs | 57 | 0.5% |
| 65+ yrs | 69 | 0.2% |
Non-Fatal
In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]
These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]
Criminal Justice System
Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults, 27% of robberies, 40% of rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police resulted in an alleged offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution.[26] [27]
Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison for committing such a crime.[28] [29] [30]
A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release:
• at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense
• at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense
• these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31]
Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records.[32]
Washington, DC
In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.[33] [34]
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional.[35]
During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]
Britain
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. To obtain this certificate, the applicant had to pay a fee, and the chief of police had to be "satisfied" that the applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate" and did not pose a "danger to the public safety or to the peace." The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.[38]
In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.[39]
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.[40]
† Homicide data is published according to the years in which the police initially reported the offenses as homicides, which are not always the same years in which the incidents took place.
‡ Large anomalies unrelated to guns:
2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK
2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients
2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges
2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings
Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]
Chicago
In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration.[43] [44] [45]
In the wake of Chicago's handgun ban, at least five suburbs surrounding Chicago instituted similar handgun bans. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's handgun ban in June 2008, at least four of these suburbs repealed their bans.[46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that Chicago's ban is unconstitutional.[51]
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.[53]
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]
In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]
* * *
Much more here
»
- 86717 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
you're serious??
A lot of powermongers ARE stark raving nutcases. Think through the ramifications. "The ends justify the means." Enough said?
Don't forget that at Columbine - the cops waited outside until the shooting stopped. Many people/children were on cell phones begging for help. They waited outside.
Of course. Owning guns is a sociatel thing. So let society deal with it. Not just the cops. Cops have children too. You are the coward in this case.
the cops waited outside until the shooting stopped. Many people/children were on cell phones begging for help. They waited outside.
Yeah, that was queer, why have hundreds of thousands and gear/trained personell, and wait for the slaughter to stop?,I will never understand the logic in that disaster.
But, if we had government-sponsored centers with video games and other fun activities for this young man and others like him that are currently unemployed or underemployed, he may have been kept busy doing something fun and engaging rather than resorting to violence...
Dont you think?
The mental ill only get attention when they get in trouble. Most cannot medicate themselves properly and get little help except family which many times are not able to deal with the constant needs of the relative. Your idea makes a thousand times more sense than banning guns. Of couse common sense should dictate a mental patient should not be allowed to gun up.
In this case, it seems the perpetrator stole the guns from his mother, used them on her, then took them with him.
First off, I'm not arguing b/c I agree with the conclusion... However, you don't need all that much historical context to realize that the 2nd amendment isn't motivated by things like personal protection against our fellow citizens or hunting. We have a guaranteed right to bare arms b/c the country was designed to have a government that FEARS its people and not the other way around. Private gun ownership is a check on power of government, one of many ebedded in the constitution. It is this that should be the primary liberty argument in the debate.
These are govt reclassifications of murders with guns. U should know that
the gov would only reclassify to make it look worse, so it's prob much safer in terms of those stats in dc after law overturned.
crime explodes in Australia AFTER gun ban put in place...
http://youtu.be/W4tS0DGDf0I
How about when you are high on medication like SSRI's you have to store your guns at a FFL dealer untill 6 months after your perscription ends , you would not give a gun to somone who is high on meth so why SSRI's.
I understand where you are going with this, but one does not get "high" on SSRIs. And yes, if you are coming off them...lock the guns away. And you should NEVER come off them without working with a psychiatrist...not a psychologist or general practitioner.
This kid was behaving like someone off their anti-psychotic meds.
I will bet money we will find that out soon.
Probably true but I would not hold my breath waiting for the corporate owned media to admit it.
I'm not sure I understand what this chart says. The spike in homicides dropped dramatically between 1996 and 2001, 7 years before the ban was removed?
I don't see any causality there unless I'm missing something?
I, too, fail to see any cause-effect relationship between the variables cited. The lack of critical thinking is a bit surprising, & disappointing.
The very obvious cause-effect (unless one chooses to ignore it for personal reasons) is the complete lack of response to the proposed resolution (gun ban) in the sample population, which in fact responded adversely to how it was supposed to respond.
The whole point of the chart is that bans rarely if ever result in the desired response.
Also, as indicated, more charts are coming.
First, I'm not debating with you, or advocating the banning of guns.
This topic is complex. Throwing up a simple graph & drawing a simple conclusion based on 2 variables is a bit short sited. Any number of competing variables could be playing a role in the number of homicides.
I'm eager to see your coming write-up on the topic. My mind is open, & I'm always eager to learn.
Good for you for having an open mind. This is a loaded issue (no pun intended). One of those issues that has no good answer. Boils down to human nature. The world is filled with predators and sickos. Some worse than others. Same as it always was. When maniacs are able to achieve positions of power at the right moment in time, they can slaughter millions. Made easier if the population being slaughtered is defenseless.
Anyhow, what is the lesser of evils? And rememeber that facts are emotionless. Times like this are difficult and filled with emotion. I am the father of two and I can hardly keep from crying when I think about what happened. But, to be rational, we must make critical decisions that are founded facts and not emotions.
The real culprit here is not inaminate objects that can kill. Heck, a nice Chevy Suburban could do as much damage. It is a world that is accelerating into oblivion trying serve the need for perpetual growth in order to maintain "economic stability" (what an oxymoron, huh?). Given that our illustrious leader have decided on the status quo... engines ahead full... one can except that bad things will happen with much more regularity.
I also wrote yesterday that the ones to crack first will be the ones who can't process what this world is doing to them so well. They don't know how to better channel thier frustration and anger. And they most likely will misdirect it.
Stating that the 300 million firearms that exist in the US are not at least one of the contributing factors affecting our enormously higher rate of homicide by gun (over 10,000 a year) is dangerously blinded thinking. Yes, there are other contributing factors, but the fact we are armed to the teeth is not making anyone any safer. The problem now is that we are all armed, so reversing this is next to impossible, we've created our own jungle.
I agree with much of what you are saying in the bigger picture of the awful direction we are heading, but the fact that our country is going to experience the coming collapse with 300 million firearms floating around, and an enormous percentage of mentally unstable people with no safety net is not encouraging. I'd much rather be in Switzerland or Israel ( the countries that pro-gunner love to quote, where they are heavily armed) and experience this same collapse because at least those countries have functioning mental health, prison, and social safety nets. If you're going to allow arms, then it's suicidal to not have safety nets in place too. Having one without the other is stupid.
There are plenty of countries with far worse economic and social situations than ours that do not experience anywhere near the level of gun crimes that we do. The only countries that compare to our levels of homicide by gyn, are Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and South Africa....we're in fine company there.
Yes, our situation is dangerous, but it is particularly bad in the US, because we as a country aren't mature enough to handle the rights given to us in the 2nd Amendment.
By the way, if pro-gun enthusiasts were to actually take the 2nd amendment seriously we should have had a dozen overthrows of tyranical US government by now.
Also, a ban in a single state doesn't mean anything when so many guns are already floating around in the country. Even during the ban, it must have been extremely easy to acquire one. If you want to see what happens when people have fewer guns in their possession, you need to actually take them away from them.
We already know what happens, crime goes up or stays the same, that is the point of this article. But having the choice to defend yourself if you desire, is a freedom we should agree upon.
You say:
"but the fact we are armed to the teeth is not making anyone any safer."
I object to your assertions.
I own several firearms and I am safer in some situations, but not all. I am certainly safer in my home, because I can now defend myself and others in my residence. However, I am not safer outside my home, because I often *choose* not to conceal and carry. There are numerous reasons, including social use of alcohol and my desire to not get sued or end up in jail if I am forced to use my firearm in public. It is my fear of the law that keeps me from protecting others. Sorry, I'm not sticking my neck out for anyone unless I am very confident that I will not get hurt/die or go to jail for assisting.
Second point. People still die in car accidents, yet we do not claim that seatbelts do not make us safer. We can all come up with times when a firearm put the public in danger (this tragedy for example). Similarily, there are examples where a seatbelt has caused a fatality that may not have happened otherwise (improper use of a seatbelt, car fires, cars that crash into water etc). But I think we can all agree seatbelts save lives. This really comes down to what is "Seen" vs. "unseen". Firearms are only discussed in the context when the fail to protect us and infact harm us.
You have a good point - but still gotta say that it is misplaced in terms of cause and effect. Hence, attempting to correct the situation will not achieve the desired results... as is evidenced in the data.
"Yes, our situation is dangerous, but it is particularly bad in the US, because we as a country aren't mature enough to handle the rights given to us in the 2nd Amendment."
Given to us?
You have an odd notion of human rights.
that is the crux of it isn't it. Or perhaps people's ultimate take on human nature. Do you assume they will always work in your favor? Do you really think the people who make up the "American" government are any different than any other people in power. The founders certainly didn't. After twenty years of judges, cops, criminals, clients and elected officials, I have to say the founders were on to something.
Well said!
I wanted to return to this.
The Founders, for all their faults, designed the best possible system of governance for all citizens, at that time. They knew once implemented "vested interests" from within it would begin to claw at all of the citizens rights, for their own selfish personal monetary gain or aggrandizement. They knew slavery wouldn't last, they knew womens sufferage would come. They built a wall of documents for the people who would come after for their protection.
What is most disheartening to me, is so many look to the very thing they were most suspicious of as they were doing it...the government they were setting up...not the people themselves.
No one will ever convince me that a Nancy Pelosi or a John McCain would not be laughed out of the room, had they ever presented themselves or their ideas before these men.
No, it's not complex. You are either ready to defend yourself or you are not. And in so many instances, government had guaranteed you are not.
Dialing 911 is not defending yourself.
Agreed. Not complex. Of course the social aspect of this is a bit sensitive considering those involved.
But, if 300 million guns are in fact owned in this country (combined with 300 million people), and guns WERE the problem...wouldn't there be MANY more of these types of incidents?
Clearly guns are not the problem.
And for the record, I am NOT a gun owner.
Why should anything ever be simple? The world is a complicated place. It's foolishness to expect that there's ever going to be a simple *reason* for why a creature as complex as a human being behaves so dramatically from time to time.
Banning guns isn't any kind of solution, but what we really ought to do is give some more consideration to what is "the problem."
Is the problem really that one time a guy shot up a school after killing his parents? (Or a movie theater?) Is that "the problem" that people think they're going to understand and solve with 5 minutes thought?
A bit of common-sense humility would benefit EVERYONE.
Thank you. This has been my point as well.
What exactly do you consider MANY more of these incidents?...they are happening every couple of months.
Yep, and we're in fine company with more than 10,000 a year in gun related homicides...The only countries that have more are Brazil, Venezuela, and South Africa.
And even looking at it in per capita numbers as we are such a large country, every other country above us is in South Amercia or Carribean. Shouldn't we be comparing ourselves to other developed countries?
Stare at this for a while and tell me that guns have nothing to do with it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-owners...
Ok fine. Since, we are using extreme examples to suggest why we *shouldn't have legal firearms*.
Let us discuss how you think another extreme example should be resolved. Let's pretend that you know your life may be in danger because a man who you have known since childhood is bipolar, he is 6"5 and 260 pounds. He has already put 2 of your friends in the hospital after waiting outside their door with a bat, with no logical reasoning. Anyone who knows him, may be a target. The police are looking for said assailant but haven't found him. You are currently dating one of his ex girlfriends. How do you precede?
"Yep, and we're in fine company with more than 10,000 a year in gun related homicides...The only countries that have more are Brazil, Venezuela, and South Africa. "
All countries with strict gun control and rates of civilian gun ownership that are a small fraction of gun ownership rates in US, by roughly an order of magnitude. Doh! Footbullet.
Gun control working as expected in those countries.
As far as global homicide rates (all homicides), there is no correlation whatsoever between rates of civilian gun ownership and homicide rates. The dead don't care whether they were shot, hacked or beaten.
Go emote somewhere else.
I agree 100%. Clearly we have to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation here. Although there is plenty of evidence that bans are ineffective.
"Although there is plenty of evidence that bans are ineffective."
Or worse, with a spike in crimes like home invasions.
Yes, of course there does seem to be a cause and effect in the initial spike, that much is obvious, but that wasn't my question, that's only half of what this chart presents...Again, and more directly what caused the dramactic drop-off, because it obviously wasn't the reversal of the ban if that's what is being implied.
Either they did something to combat this spike in DC that actually worked and needs to be acknowledged, or something else happened during those years that led to this dramatic drop-off. You can't ignore the second half of this chart.
I'm open to hear more, but this chart only confuses matters further in it's current form
>>> or something else happened during those years that led to this dramatic drop-off. You can't ignore the second half of this chart.<<<
Finally...
Yes, something did happen. It was demographics. It was the age range distribution of the male population.
More specifically, it's believed that the fall in crime that happened all over the US at that time was the result of making abortion legal.
You see, it's mostly poor people and single mothers that feel the need to take such a radical measure as is to abort one's unborn child - it's not an easy decision, legal abortion or not. As it so happens, the children of single mothers and broken families are far more likelly to end up in a life of crime.
So legallizing abortion resulted in a decrease of unwanted children or children raised in a single parent family, which in turn led to a decrease in crime at around the point when males reach the peak of criminality (late teens, early 20s).
Abortion no doubt had some effect. There was a study. It was roundly criticized as flawed. It was likely not as pronounced as the authors believed.
Just search keywords - abortion decrease crime - and you can read about the study, criticism and controversy.
Just remember that the "crack epidemic" hit at different times in different cities. Large midwestern cities "lagged" by a couple of years in crack related homicides compared to east and west coast cities.
What oddly remained constant nationwide in big cities was the change in the age range distribution of the male population.
Law enforcement journals are filled with demographic studies tracking this phenom.
So the solution to prevent crime is to make sure that the percentage of any given population that are males between 18 and 35 must always be less than X. Excess males must be shipped overseas to fight, be detained, or otherwise removed from general population.
No, the solution is to free markets and allow individuals to create opportunities for themselves and others.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/spotlight/spotlight.xml?version=3
What's Going On| UN Millennium Development Goals
Remarks by the President at the Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York, New York
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/22/remarks-president-millennium-development-goals-summit-new-york-new-york
/sarc
>>>in the sample population, which in fact responded adversely to how it was supposed to respond.<<<
YES. Again, the on/off lock/hand gun had no effect on the murder rate...one way or the other...they didn't act adversely to it because it wasn't even a factor.
Something was a factor...and you still haven't figured out. Need a hint?
[ FWIW The on/off lock/hand gun ban might have had some minimal effect on the rate of accidental in home child shootings. ]
What a wortheless chart. You just go outside the city limits or to a bordering state like IN or IA which has much friendly gun laws.
Dryam, what are you blind?
The chart is very clear, the law didn't do what it was intended to do.
I was also wondering about the timing. Couldn't it also be summed up with "It's the economy, stupid"?
Seems the decline in crime matches the economic prosperity during the run-up to the tech bubble (which people somehow attribute to Clinton).
Or access to demographics.
Spurious relationship between on/off handgunban/locks and murder rates.
Try again.
The spike could be due to homeowners suddenly being disarmed; or was there suddenly an increase in young adult males?
I am aware of the sudden drop-off in youg male population that is correlated to the sudden drop-off in violent crime.
Tyler Durden,
Australia's weapons confiscation and increase in crime shows current idiocy of gun control.
Great for security system companies, snarf.
overlay rise of welfare distributions and youll get a nice correlation
Hmm, murder rates highest from roughly '74 to '94. That's about when most baby boomers were in their mid 20s through 40s, and cocaine's popularity peaked.
Do I win a prize?
There was zero access to weapons of every description in that school. Please try again.
Betcha dollars to donuts this kid was on psychotropic prescription drugs like antidepressants.
Seems likely, and if it wasn't the meds, it could have been the recent divorce. $10,000 per month alimony, paid by a $450,000 per year, no-tax accountant for GE, is wrong. Need to outlaw alimony.
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Divorce-pulled-Lanza-family-apart...
@Careless Whisper
Nice job rearing your son, Peter Lanza. Like I needed another reason to hate on GE or GE Energy Financial Services. Did anyone see the 60 minutes interview of Hugh Jackman last Sunday? After his mother left the family, the dad reared 5 (IIRC) children all on his own. Parents used to make sacrifices for the kids and used to take time to educate and discipline children. Now? It's the exception, not the rule.
Ignorance about mental illness runs rampant in our society. It parallels that of financial ignorance. Mental illness is very common & disorders are far from being black & white; they are spectrum disorders with innumerable shades of grey.
Correct. Just like epilepsy. It can fall into various categories, but exists on a spectrum... various spectrums actually. But, we really need to start talking about cause and effect. This world is accelerating into oblivion. Much of the modern mental issues are created by this. The brain trying to cope with what is wrong, but society saying it is right. Everyone now hiding thier personal demons instead of facing them.
A friend of mine and I have a joke about reaching our limits and going "mosquito coast" - in reference to the old Harrison Ford movie. lol.
That's a tremendous book, incidentally, read it and you'll be struck at just how many "Allie Fox" megalomaniacs are lurking here.
How many pushups can YOU do?
Myxedema madness. 3/4 of a century ago and for many centuries before, half of all children never reached adulthood because of infectious disease. The strong half survived. There is a theory that hypothyroidism, majority of victims suffering from the undetectable type 2, is found in half of all people. But in the olden days they never lived long because of weakened immune systems.
Nowadays, thanks to vaccines and antibiotics, the hypothyroid's live long lives and fall into varying degrees of myxedema madness. Endocrinologists do not treat type 2, except with psychotropic drugs. Type 2's are regular medical customers.
Based on his photograph, Adam Lanza had lots of issues and none appear to be mild...
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/121214-adamL-vsmall.380;380;7;70;0.jpg
Sad. You just know he was a social outcast, probably a contributing factor to his rampage.
And I'll add, James Holmes (the Aurora Colorado shooter) was seeing a University of Colorado psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton. The university started trying to move heaven & earth with their lawyers to suppress that simple fact...for liability purposes.
But its always the guns...riiiiiiight.
Big Pharma is to blame for this tragedy, not guns!
http://youtu.be/SBJfZtB_3cc
A sick mind is to blame. I agree we should talk about medication before guns though.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution
– but giving us no ideas about their plans
for the future – the School recommended (among
other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’
authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against
victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/incogman.net-the-frankfurt-school-conspiracy-to-corrupt.pdf
More on The Frankfurt School:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf
Yep.
Right out of KGB handbook: 1) Subversion > 2) destabillization > 3) crises > 4) "Normalization"
Subversion of values and institutions, destabilization of economy and society, finally a crises is created which demands "new" paradigm solution -- Marxism -- which becomes "normalized." Marxism will then be seen as the only natural way forward to desperate people. The only alternative, because the previoius system has been wilfully subverted and perceptions of reality have been shrewdly manipulated by MSM propaganda.
We are nearly at the crises phase when the currency collapses and the shit gets real. Subversion in open societies is legal and occurs in the open such as enviro-groups shutting down energy production, and community organizing groups demanding taxpayer money to lobby banks for subprime loans, stuffing ballot boxes while they're at it.
Except, instead of taking 25 years like they planned, it took more like 50 years.
Perhaps some form of training with a test to licence the user, like driving a car or bike, cant be worse than giving em away free to anyone who opens a bank account even if they are mentally ill.
So your thesis is that driving tests materially limit bad drivers from getting a license? [the other issue is that applicants with mental disorders/drug addition/violent crimes are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm]
Just my two cents, i live in uk so gun crime isn't an issue here compared to the USA (% of population)
I dont think banning certain types of guns will change anything in the USA, it appears to be a cultural/social thing that makes USA people go postal more often than other countries.
End of the day, if someone decides to go postal they will do it with any tools to hand, look at the chinese school attack.
But admitting your society has a gun fetish problem never gets you votes, pretending to be for or against banning them does.
Obama will talk about it but not do it, its impractical and it will not fix the problem.
Gun crime increased by 89% in a decade.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
People don't stop criminals with guns.
People with guns stop them.
You just quoted the UK equivalent of fox news as a reliable source for data?
Why should he be interested in facts, when he can have beliefs?
"You just quoted the UK equivalent of fox news as a reliable source for data?"
But is what was quoted, true or false?
Big surprise: Lots of teams like to play with the data to prove a point. But, there really is no direct link with gun laws. As we have been watching, discussing and living, violent crime occurs for a lot of reasons including severe stress, neglected mental health, economic desperation and a host of other things. As I pitched earlier, I think the severe crimes will continue with the sever stresses.
gunowners.org
Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries"Big surprise: Lots of teams like to play with the data to prove a point. But, there really is no direct link with gun laws."
Exactly right...if one doesn't like the numbers, get new numbers...lol.
A very good indication of "societal ill's" is to look at the suicide rate among nations, afterall, if one even contemplates killing oneself...killing another would be an "added bonus" to the narcissistic self afflicted.
Interesting that China, Russia, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, Finland, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland are all ahead of us in that regard.
With the exception of Switzerland (which is defacto militia, thus access to arms) I find it remarkable that they all have strict gun control laws.
So it's not the gun.
It is something else going on within these countries that makes life cheap and unwanted, instead of extremely desirable and precious.
A big concern in Australia now is hot women with large breasts robbing gas station attendents with big knives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaU1yuz8quE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL_kvR3yJxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKagjHjsmeY
Wow she is a drug user too - who knew? She looked hotter in the CCTV video.
I sentence her to a spanking. The punishment to be carried out immediately at my place/home/crib.
Good thing she had big tits, if I was the cashier I would have punched her in the face when she pulled back her knife arm.
The reporter...third vid...was hotter ;-)
LOL! I would have also punched her then taken her outside and spanked her a*s with car antenna.
The reporter was pretty hot. What a circus. Once again drugs were involved.
The solution is not in legislation. You sort of pointed that out. Thought I'd insert my 2 cents accordingly!
Gotta love Brits. UK home invasion burglaries shot up 50% right after handguns for home use were banned. Then, to combat the "unexpected" increase in home invasions, Brits made it a crime for the victim to stay in his own house to repel invaders instead of jumping out the upstairs window with baby.
Brilliant! Now the invasion victims get to go to jail as well. Brits even banning sharp kitchen knives now, too; ie., banning guns didn't work. Pretty soon the NIH will just hand out running shoes to cut down on ER visits.
BTW, the law abiding gun culture jurisdictions in the USA have similar homicide rates as Canada and Western Europe. We have a government dole ethnic minority class of ours which make up 13% of the population but commits 58% of the crimes, and coddled re-offenders are already gun-banned by virtue of past criminal behavior. UK only has 3% of same said minority, and you can't even mention it over there without going to jail for a hate crime.
You think fear of the law is gonna stop me protecting my family?
Would fear of the law stop you defending your family?
Of course not, so lets get to the real issue.
If I killed a 'home invader' why would I call the police and tell them I had done so?
Destroy all the evidence, and carry on with your life.
So your theory is that you should just hide the body of an attacker who wants to harm you or your family instead of repeal an unjust and tyranical law? WTF is wrong with you? I am more afraid of people like you than psychos with guns who get off their medication. Of course, that is because I own a gun, know how to use it, and have real life experience with said interaction.
"instead of jumping out the upstairs window with baby."
And then I thought you were gonna tell me that we can't have 2nd storie houses.
Saves all those fleeing injuries.
What fraction of car accidents are caused by licensed drivers?
What fraction of car accidents are caused by unlicensed drivers in stolen cars?
Approximately zero.
You obviously have never seen an LA car chase by LAPD broadcast live on tv from news helicopter. If so, you would see the damage done by these criminals fleeing police in stolen cars every day.
I've seen them, they make for great TV "news", but in terms of the number of people killed in car accidents every year, the number caused by unlicensed drivers is negligible. It doesn't make any difference if the number were .1%, 1%, or even 20%; the fact is that licensing doesn't stop licensed drivers from being responsible for the vast majority of traffic fatalities. Bob Pease wrote a book about how to not get into accidents - a died wrapping his car around a tree.
And yet somehow, driving in North America seems dramatically safer than driving in Russia. Perhaps traffic law enforcement, driver education and licensing are factors?
Things are so bad in Russia, they use dash-cams to records what is happening to try to improve things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlxHPJAONpE
Why should we have to be subject to facts, when we can just pull shit out of our asses that re-enforce our personal "logic" about the world?!
The more cars on the road, the more accidents there are.
The more miles you drive, the more likely you are to die in a car accident.
The more guns there are in circulation, the more shooting of guns there will be.
The more guns fired, the more things killed by guns.
The more holes in the streets, the more people will fall in holes.
The way to reduce the number of shootings of is to reduce the number of guns. Reducing the number of holes in the streets will reduce the number of people driving into them.
It's simple physics.
My ex business partner blew his chest open taking his shotgun out of his truck at a shooting range.
He loved guns.
Not sure his kids do now.
Merry Xmas.
Yet oddly enough, since some of the most draconian gun laws in the world were intoduced in the UK, there's been a doubling of violent gun crime in the UK.
"The more cars on the road, the more accidents there are."
It is not so simple.
Cars per 1000 people:
Afghanistan: 29
America: 812
fatal motor vehicle accidents per 100,000 people:
Afghanistan: 39.0
America: 12.3
So America has 28 times as many cars but only 1/3 the amount of fatal car crashes.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_...
You obviously have not been focused on the ones in the police cars who are chasing the criminals at high unsafe speeds despite the fact that they have them on video, have a helicopter that can track them while the LEOs hang back, and most of the criminals are guilty of crimes that the dead and injured civilians who were otherwise innocent bystanders in these highly-publicized police chases would argue were not worth putting them in danger... That being said, I'm also in favor of just launching a missile into the criminals cars to end the chase quickly, but the highly publicized police chases disgust me.
Non-licensed Motorcyclists have a high accident and death rate.
Motorcyclists are a limited danger to metal caged auto drivers, who are their killer.
As an avid world rider on two wheels, those non-licensed are stupid anyway.
Every time I have purchased a gun they ask me ( along with a battery of other questions they ar required to in Cali) "are you mentally ill ?" I bust out laughing every time, the seller does too. The seller says next " gosh, I'm so glad you said no....I feel so much safer now". I noticed the last time I purchased a new question is " are you planning to renounce your citizenship ?". Really, go buy a gun.... Better than stand up comedy.
Miffed:-)
Will you be safer if everyone is armed or nobody is armed? First of all, governments are not proposing to disarm. Are governments not filled with people? How are these people any more 'responsible' than anyone else? Can 'public servants' not lose their minds? So, the suggestion that 'nobody is armed' is fallacious on it's face. Secondly, 'nobody is armed' in the jungle, so who rules in this case? If you are the biggest and the strongest then perhaps you will love your prey being disarmed. For everyone else, I recommend a firearm as the great creator of peace between the physically weak and would-be predators.
Will you be safer if everyone is armed or nobody is armed? First of all, governments are not proposing to disarm. Are governments not filled with people? How are these people any more 'responsible' than anyone else? Can 'public servants' not lose their minds? So, the suggestion that 'nobody is armed' is fallacious on it's face. Secondly, 'nobody is armed' in the jungle, so who rules in this case? If you are the biggest and the strongest then perhaps you will love your prey being disarmed. For everyone else, I recommend a firearm as the great creator of peace between the physically weak and would-be predators.
along with a battery of other questions they ar required to in Cali) "are you mentally ill ?" I bust out laughing every time, the seller does too.
Sadly - anyone remaining in Calif (last election it got even worse) has to be mentally ill. Sad because it is a beautiful state but God, Gaia, creation, whatever - made Cali pretty. The lefty people (mainly liberal transplants for the NE) made the state hell.
Winston Churchill is a bad example of someone overcoming his biplor disorder. He was a genocidal maniac responsible for the starvation deaths of 4 million Indians during World War II.
Madhusree Mukerjee’s book is not a denunciation of the British rule of India, but a meticulous chronicling of the role of the British Raj in furthering a famine in Bengal, and suppressing the fact that this deliberate holocaust took 4 million lives.
Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II
"When Gandhi began his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.” He later added: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
Apparently, Churchill had no regrets on the deliberate starvation deaths of 4 million Indians which is generally ignored in WW II history - history being written by the victors.
Churchill’s six-volume History of the Second World War fails to mention the cataclysm that was responsible for about 90% of total British Empire casualties in that conflict
Churchill's kinda the flip-side of Travis Bickle. Crazies are crazies, it's all well and good, from time to time they go rampaging and shoot up schools, and a bit less often, the rampage leads them to become global leaders and they win horrific wars.
WC "won" nothing. The whole point of his 1914-45 anti-German War was to preserve the Brit Empire. But Churchill's War destroyed the Brit Empire, destroyed Europe, took down all the other White European Empires, handed half the planet over to Judeo-communists, decimated the White Race, and mortally wounded Western Civilization itself. Of course the neo-con Jews revere his memory: Churchill's War put Israel on the map...though the price was a bit high.
Fuck you.
Dear Mayor Bloomberg's minion,
Maybe I don't read so good, but the so called assault weapon was found in the guy's car ...
He probably put it back there before he shot himself.
Moar police state! For freedom!
@dryam
Abraham Lincoln was an evil fuck. Focus on the person with the problem, not the gun. I applaud ZH for, once again, being at the forefront of this story and focusing the attention where it rightly belongs:
I have several nephews that have been diagnosed with Asperger's and, thanks to my brother's lack of parenting skills, these boys are anti-social little fuck-ups. One of them will only eat pizza and one or two other things, refuses to drink anything other than water and plays video games by himself all day long when he's not in school. At family gatherings, he withdraws to a back room in the house, playing video games by himself and no one is allowed to disturb him. How is he going to fit into society later in life? Parents of Asberger children need to step it up, or we'll all suffer. I've confronted my brother about it, but it got ugly and the rest of my family asked me to drop it. Obviously, I'm the problem for expecting parents to teach their children social skills and the ability to get along with others.
+1 for the courage to confront him on that.
Time for people to wake the fuck up on these deplorable violent video games too. They only contribute to this anti social behavior.
I doubt it. Most people who play violent videogames quickly realize that:
A) no matter how good you are, you will inevitably die
B) there are no respawns in real life.
@Matt
Key word: Most. For people who've lost control of reality, it's probably not a good thing. But, more than that, why do people like to assume fantasy roles in a war zone? That's sick, and if I have to explain why that's sick, then that's part of the problem. I don't think anyone from the "Great Generation" who stormed the beaches of Omaha or Utah would find any pleasure in this ridiculus "entertainment." Just signs of the pathology affecting our culture.
You never played Cowboys and Indians or Cops and Robbers as children? If not, may I ask your nationality?
+1
Great job by the Tyler(s). Abe was evil. Hundreds of thousands of American young men in the USA were slaughtered for nothing except for the bankers who wanted their ilk to take over the south.
There is nothing healthy about letting children play video games for hours on end. It is a cop out by self absorbed parents who like the kid being out of site and out of mind. Video games are a digital baby sitter like sh*t TV. Mommy and daddy are too busy. Push the kid outside to ride a bike or a skateboard or play ball.
I liked playing video/computer games but I realized they were a huge waste of time. I never was addicted or really played that much. You cannot tell me that endless hours of simulated death and mayhem do not imprint something on the brain.
Ever notice how whenever young people "medicating", video games or violent movie connections and any limits are quickly nipped in the bud by Pharamaceutical Inc and Hollywood? Hollywood is very involved in video games.
@Freddie
Activision wants you to know that there's a soldier in all of us. Nothing wrong with that right? God have mercy on this once great nation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlwfXBCzg4U&feature=youtube_gdata
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=Y989yQnuB9g
ZH is not blaming Asperger's for shooting massacres, you are. Mass shootings inevitably involve auto/semi auto weapons. The world is full of mentally ill people (some of them can even figure out how to post things on the internets, apparently) but I doubt they could shoot anybody if they didn't find a gun. Wait, no gun = no shooting? That can't be true... I'm sure he could have easily killed the same number wielding a heavy plastic video box.
Blame it on Bush no I mean Reagan. If he would have gotten socialized medicine legislation then implemented this shooting might not have happened. No, really. See Reagan get's the legislation passed, then Bush senior would have been involved with the implementation of it about the time this kid was born. The parents would have had him tested at 2, 3, maybe and diagnosed. The socialized medicine folks would realize the expense to the government and the parents and the death panels would have recommended euthanasia for the kid. End of story, no tragedy. Blame Reagan, and Bush Sr.
"Tragedies like this can not be prevented. They can only be minimized by minimizing access to assault weapons."
Wrong.
Tragedies like this can not be prevented AND they can not be minimized by minimizing access to any object used for the purpose of being used as a weapon.
The central problem here has nothing to do with your right to bear arms. Tyler Durden misses the central issue as well.
The problem revolves around mental illness and how we treat it. We've closed down barbaric institutions and have now turned prisons into wards for these people. We've made the medicines prohibitively expensive. Adults who suffer from mental illness can NOT be made to be compliant with their medications. When the mentally ill live on the street you have lost the battle. It takes a supportive, forceful and nurturing family to catch the problem and then to attend to it EVERYDAY. You have too many armchair therapists who are clueless. And may I mention that psychiatrists like seeing people with Depression and not schizophrenics or acute bipolars because these folk have a bad habit of harming the guy in the suit taking notes.
Psychiatrists, with few exception, require the adult himself to call for an appointment. Patients don't. If they do, it means they are acknowledging they have a problem. These illnesses are studies in SELF-DENIAL. End of problem for the psychiatrist not wanting to see these people..
When parents call in and identify the malady they are told: "We are no longer seeing new patients." You then call back with Depression and they can see you NEXT week. The law regarding this matter is rather simple: "One can NOT force a doctor to see a patient."
If you are waiting for clear, concise answers, so is ten percent of the population's parents.
End of story.
Now put up another hundred posts discussing your right to bear arms.
I don't give a damn what his issues were or if they could have been treated.
Someone there who was an adult should have been prepared to stop such a threat. They were not.
Someone there who was an adult should have been prepared to stop such a threat. They were not.
Are you blaming the other teachers?
I dunno, it's certainly possible this could've been prevented by a well-intentioned hero, but it could also have been over within 3 minutes. No matter how I look at it, I've gotta think LUCK would've been a *major* factor.
A guy sneaks through a door, walks to his mom's classroom, shoots her, shoots a bunch of kids, and shoots himself.
Total time elapsed? Anyone got a cite on that?
The point is that if there is an expectation that people in the school are armed, then that will deter the guy from doing it in the first place. No one shoots up a gun show.
Just looked up the definition of "jackass" in the dictionary again.
It's really hard to imagine a stupider response than that. Tell ya what, if I ever decide to kill myself, I'll go shoot up a gunshow just to shut you morons up.
There were 7 theaters within 20 min of Aurora CO psycho's home. Only ONE banned Conceal Carry. He chose that one: http://fxn.ws/Stcadn
h/t @TheRachelHerron
Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/16/virtually-unreported-ccw-holder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d#ixzz2FFVv4k6A
"But as is being reported by kgw.com, part was also due to the fact that, gun-free zone or not, Jacob Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli who was armed and has a concealed carry permit."
No but your facts are wrong, his mother was shot at home not the school with a rifle owned by her.
Thank you.
removed.
Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill were probably two of the biggest ass-hats we've ever had the misfortune to be abused by. I just thought they were collectivist power-mongering lying individual rights tramplers who reveled in abusing power. One of them stamped out states rights in order to force membership in a "Union". The other brought back the lovely practice of total warfare, when he bombed German cities. They had (and still do have) great speech writers, but if you use a "mute button" and look at what they did instead of what they said, the shine pales. Severely. (PS, the current movie on Lincoln sends a wonderful message, doesn't it: the Ends Justifies the Means. It isn't even historically accurate, for some reason Spielberg felt that now was the time to create yet another Lincoln fiction involving the necessity of ugly sausage making by public servants who (of course) have the best interest of the little guy as their core motive. Jesus wept. Read history, go through the facts, and then come back to me with some sort of opinion that Lincoln was anything other than dead last on our list of good Presidents).
But they were bi-polar? I guess I may have misjudged them.
As for "preventing" this type of incident, there are ways and then there are ways. The methods sure to be proposed likely involved some highly moral sounding central authority regulation testing and monitoring; the bureaucrats will *try* their best, only to suffer perpetually under too little funding, and will cry year after year for even more power and control.
Then there is the process of a nation waking up to the issues that create hopelessness and disillusionment and unemployability and that feeling in the back of your 20 something head that you've been lied to your whole life, are being lied to now, and that you just can't take anymore of the sickening plasticized dead-to-the-world faces of the zombie population you find yourself trapped in. Screwed over, and all around you seem to be in a club you don't want to join. Life doesn't, shouldn't have to be this way, but we ask our youth to pretend too, to just accept it, and find happiness in beer, football and crass humor. A world built on pretense and false glitter has prices that will be paid.
When cracks show up in your foundation, you can either dig to find the root cause, or try cosmetic patches and band aids that seem to address the symptom. Guns aren't the problem, unless you wish to allow what is breaking the hearts and spirits of a significant portion of our population to continue...
these two reigned during the deaths of how many?
What's your point dryam? Was an assault weapon used here? Are you sure? Would you feel better if a semi-automatic 12 guage shotgun was used? Access? access? Some countries ISSUE true battle weapons to its citizens. This is a tragic situation but, some people need to put the situation in perspective. What if a non-crazy, determined, trained, and equipped individual did something. Much more horrific.
This is not about how the public mental health system or lack of gun control legislation. An individual broke down....and others suffer.
An "assault weapon" wasn't used in the Newtown shooting you dumb shit. Banning handguns would be like trying to ban "oxygen" from the atmosphere.
Do you think we're ever going to find out if this kid/man/boy was on prescription medicine? Do you think we will ever hear if this kid spent most of the last 12 years shooting a few hundred people a day in video games?
I understand your position dryam, but will you also be passionate about the elimination of psychostimulant drugs for children?
Will you also be as passionate about outlawing the use of "shooter" games for all non-adults with parents being punished for violations?
If you won't...then you're a hypocrite. If you will, then at least I respect your consistency.
Apparently, records are sealed on Virginia Tech shooter whether he was on any meds.
Bullshit.
Yes because criminals and unstable people really care about legal access to assault weapons. You deserved every down vote you got.
Lanza did NOT take an assult weapon into the school it was left in his car. He did not kill at the school with an assult weapon. he killed his mother with a rifle that belonged to her. with assult weapons. He had tried to buy a rifle earlier in the week but was denied because the present system works. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
Anyone know if the second shooter had a rifle. Odd how the supposed second shooter disappered. What was the response time by the cops?
Anyone know why this car at the scene has a bullet-hole LEAVING the interior?
http://youtu.be/xtUqGukP2SY
Are you being paid for each time.you use the term "assault weapons"?
Yes.
Would it have changed anything in this case?
No.
Abraham Lincoln & Winston Churchill had bipolar disorder. What's your point? Tragedies like this can not be prevented. They can only be minimized by minimizing access to assault weapons.
I totally agree. If you start selling nukes in shops one day some idiot will blow up your city.
I'm curious, are there any weapons that don't assault someone? Are there friendly weapons, kissing weapons, cigar-and-blue-dress weapons?
minimizing access to assault weapons is only possible for sane, law-abiding people. Crazy, dangerous and/or criminal people can't be limited in their access. That's why they're crazy, dangerous and/or criminals.
Duh.
so did the shooter's barber
Remember when armed lunatics massacred 76 men, women, and children at Waco?
So did David Byrne, Talking Heads, Psycho killer, quest que cest?
So did Michael Burry
This entire article is irresponsible Tyler(s). The shooting is not about some alleged mental disorder nor is it about guns. Those are distractions, and ZH is following right along with all the other sheep.
We may never know what motivated that kid to do what he did, but I sure would like to see a list of medications he was on ...which ZH apparently has no interest in.
Drugs make people do crazy things. Medical, non-medical, what's the difference?