This highlights one of the problems with too-easily accessible firearms; the undiagnosed mentally ill.
from the AP:
Tucson shooting suspect leaves Arizona. for Missouri, where he'll get mental health treatment
U.S. Marshal for Arizona David Gonzales says Jared Lee Loughner arrived in Springfield, Mo., around midday Friday.
Loughner will spend up to four months at the facility. A judge ruled Wednesday that the 22-year-old was mentally unfit to assist his lawyers in defending him.
Mental health experts who examined Loughner at the same Missouri facility in March and April had concluded he suffers from schizophrenia.
Loughner has pleaded not guilty to federal charges stemming from the shooting that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 12 others and killed six people.
Well, they gotta see if they can make him uncrazy so's they can make him unalive.
ReplyDeleteMaking delusional paranoid sociopaths or narcisistic personalities "sane" enough to stand trial is in the same realm as curing teh GAY--with the difference that the first two are actual disorders.
"This highlights one of the problems with too-easily accessible firearms; the undiagnosed mentally ill."
ReplyDeleteSince he was undiagnosed, exactly which law would have prevented it?
The ones in most of the countries of western europe that make it generally harder than walking into a Walmart and plinking down your money.
ReplyDeleteArizona actually has a pretty good system for catching people who are ill; but it wasn't used. Just like they are abysmal at turning in the names of people who are criminals, dangerously mentally ill, etc.
The shooting of Giffords and all those other people could and should have been a prevented.
Perhaps I mistake your meaning FWM, but it sounds like you think because Jared Loughner wasn't prevented, no one should even try, there should be no limitations.
ReplyDeleteWe should just shoot down people who are schizophrenic like they used to shoot rabid dogs, which shows a terribly wrong understanding of mental illness.
And apparently you think that if we lose a few unarmed civlians while that happens, oh well, it's a small price to pay if we all play with out guns without restriction?
That's stupid.
Yeah, that's one of the popular pro-gun arguments. Criminals and mental cases will always get guns so what's the use of trying to stop them.
ReplyDeleteThe ones who make this argument know very well it's bullshit. What they're really afraid is being inconvenienced themselves.
No Dog Gone, my point was that you can pass all the laws you want to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. You can also strengthen all the laws to report them to NICS but it would not have mattered in this case.
ReplyDeleteLougner was UNDIAGNOSED and UN-REPORTED. You could make it a federal law that every shrink in the country has to immediately fly to Clarksburg and personally enter their patients into the database and it would still not prevent someone that was not diagnosed from being flagged by NICS.
Let's not use those barbarians in Europe as role models. They still hold all the records for slaughtering each other.
FWM, while you are correct that Lougher was not formally diagnosed, there was clear evidence that Loughner had some sort of serious mental/emotional problems.
ReplyDeleteWould any law prevent all problems, all gun violence?
No. Of course not, that is expecting too much of any legislation.
But making it more difficult for those individuals to acquire guns and to freely carry them IS within our ability.
Loughner didn't suddenly just start having serious problems the morning he shot Giffords and the others. Here's another angle, given the millions upon millions of people in this country who don't have health care or who have very limited insurance, and the further reductions at all levles of the services we provide for mental health care and evaluation, it certainly suggests that it is ill-considered to broaden and to slack off on our gun carry / gun purchase regulations.
Loughner may be schizophrenic, but that doesn't mean he can't function well, if not be permanently healed of his illness, with treatment. Some people do, some don't.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence to suggest that Loughner would have decided not to attack Giffords if he would have had to get a license to carry first. He was bent on murder and criminals, insane or not, tend not to worry about carry permits when they are out to commit murder, armed robbery or other assaults.
Carry licenses, like gun registration only applies to the law abiding, not the criminal.
FMW, 1. we can do more to make acquiring a gun more difficult - for example, if Loughner had to first be a member of some organization like a gun club, which is I think an excellent way to provide plenty of access to legitimately acquiring guns for those who genuinely enjoy shooting sports, like skeet shooting and target shooting or hunting as hobbies, as they do in Europe, it is likely that a club would have rejected someone like Loughner from joining based on his behavior.
ReplyDeleteLoughner walked into a store and legally bought a weapon, wheras had he been required first to get a permit as they do here in MN, it is at least possible, it would at least have been one more check and balance against his behavior, had local police familiar with his problem behaviors had the opportunity to give a thumbs down on his purchase.
Making guns less accessible reduces gun violence. I would even argue to you that making guns harder to legitimately acquire might encourage gun owners to take greater care to secure their weapons, if they had a more difficult time replacing them.
All of the tedious snark aside that we see too often FWM, we do I think genuinely want at least some of the same things - fewer weapons in the hands of criminals and dangerously crazy people. Fewer homicides and fewer suicices and less violent crimen in general (less crime total would be nice, but I think we need to give importance to less violence overall as much as possible).
I would argue to you that descending into a society where we rely on individuals to defend themselves against other individuals, rather than on law and law enforcement, is a descent into an uncivilized society.
My friend Laci wrote about what that kind of society was really like, rather than the idealized version of it, the fantasy of it,
https://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/border-reivers-an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society/
although he might not appreciate me posting it here - he's the only blogger I know who genuinely prefers fewer readers than more readers, LOL.
The issue here is not whether we could stop such undiagnosed people from getting a gun, LEGALLY, but rather how much freedom we, as a society, are willing to give up to see this carried out. You (Mikeb302000)and dog gone are willing to give up your right to carry and use legal firearms without draconian registration and purchasing restrictions because you don't find the use of firearms important. I fit in the other camp. My camp understands that weapons can be acquired legally and illegally by nearly anyone interested in doing so. You folks are on a crusade to deprive the rest of us of our rights simply because you don't approve of our way of thinking. I find that concept much more dangerous than any firearm.
ReplyDeleteI'm not on a crusade Beerme, to deprive any lawful person of the right to own a firearm. Nor do I favor anything that could remotely be fairly called draconian.
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think that a civilized society relies on people being armed at all times to defend themselves, either from crime or from government.
You write:"My camp understands that weapons can be acquired legally and illegally by nearly anyone interested in doing so."
Incorrect; gun violence and guns used in crimes occur less frequently in other countries where there are fewer guns. And that includes where fewer members of law enforcement NEED to carry guns to do their jobs. I would refer you to another Laci post for an example:https://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/i-blame-it-on-the-americans/
We can make it harder for the acquisition and use of illegal guns.
Beerme also writes, "You folks are on a crusade to deprive the rest of us of our rights simply because you don't approve of our way of thinking. I find that concept much more dangerous than any firearm."
I am only on a crusade, as you call it, of persuasion and to promote discussion and rational thought - as distinct from the paranoid and irrational, which would be exemplified by that last statement. I don't disapprove of your thinking, I find it flawed and I am critical of it, and therefore I challenge it.
And so far, you haven't responded with facts or critical thinking, you've responded with knee-jerk slogans and paranoia, including but not limited to mischaracterizing what I stand for and what I do.
I contribute here in supplying posts which include factual accounts of gun violence with a brief (usually brief, for me) commentary. And I take time out of my life to moderate comments like yours, to promote that discussion. That is not draconian.
I do not, and never have, advocated for lawful people not to own guns. I have advocated that in order to do what can be done to ensure that lawful people do and unlawful people don't have access to guns that we have more regulation and more checking. But so long as you are genuinely a legal potential gun owner, and so long as you use that gun legally and not otherwise I have never ever argued you or anyone else should not own a gun.
What I do not see from your side of that argument sir, is any useful proposed solution other than citizens blowing each other away and taking law enforcement into their own hands, to address those incidents of gun violence.
If you can't come up with anything other than lets have people open up and start shooting at each other, you have failed the intellectual challenge, and any legislative one as well.
Dog gone, if your stance is that people can have all the guns they want provided they follow your proposed procedures- then why do you keep pointing to western europe where they only have a small fractiom of our gun ownership? You keep trotting out the fewer guns equals fewer "gun deaths" meme, so doesn't that mean you want a massive reduction in guns? You are not going to get that with more background checks.
ReplyDelete"Loughner walked into a store and legally bought a weapon, wheras had he been required first to get a permit as they do here in MN, it is at least possible, it would at least have been one more check and balance against his behavior, had local police familiar with his problem behaviors had the opportunity to give a thumbs down on his purchase."
ReplyDeleteMinnesota's permit is basically a state background check. In a lot of cases, yes, it is possible that a check that has more state record access than NICS could possibly prevent someone from slipping through the cracks, that would have not helped in this case. Had Loughner been a MN resident and purchased there, he would still have been able to purchase. Being an undiagnosed nutjob, he would have had no more records in MN than he did in AZ and his purchase permit would have been approved.
"I would argue to you that descending into a society where we rely on individuals to defend themselves against other individuals, rather than on law and law enforcement, is a descent into an uncivilized society."
In Utopia maybe this would be a good argument but we do not live in Utopia. Instead we live in a world where violent people do violent things to good people at an ever increasing rate. It has got to the point that society cannot protect everyone all of the time. Guns and gun availability did not cause this. We have more gun laws now than ever yet the rate of violence continues to soar. At the same time budgets are falling and we have less law enforcement on the streets. Population increases, Violent crime increases. Ratio of law enforcement decreases.
No, not being serious about your own security and depending upon the police and ems to save you is a sheep mentality. I don't even necessarily mean everyone carry a gun--that is just one more tool. You should also increase your situational awareness and avoid areas that have an increase in street crime. And as much as MikeB thinks it is silly to have a first aid kit instead of just dialing 911 and hope they get there before your child bleeds out, well, that is just preposterous.
FWM wrote:
ReplyDelete"Being an undiagnosed nutjob, he would have had no more records in MN than he did in AZ and his purchase permit would have been approved."
You are incorrect FWM; Loughner had enough brushes with the law that he COULD have been denied a permit in MN.
FWM then wrote:"In Utopia maybe this would be a good argument but we do not live in Utopia. Instead we live in a world where violent people do violent things to good people at an ever increasing rate."
Incorrect; statistics show that violent crime has been steadily decreasing.
I can't believe that MikeB has ever suggested not having a first aid kit - and some skill in using it. I certainly believe in the motto I learned as a Girl Scout, "Be Prepared".
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI thought that MN had a shall issue permit based upon a state background check that, while more thorough than NICS, was still a search of convictions and adjudications which Loughner had none of. Am I wrong and it is "may issue"?
Agreed on "Be Prepared". Help is not always available and to depend on it instead of on yourself is dangerous. I am sure that living in MN in those winters you have blankets and supplies in your car.
I thought that MN had a shall issue permit based upon a state background check that, while more thorough than NICS, was still a search of convictions and adjudications which Loughner had none of. Am I wrong and it is "may issue"?
ReplyDeleteIt was may issue when I got mine; even under the state background check, the encounters with Loughner would have been sufficient to deny him on both the basis of mental health and certainly on the basis of drugs.
I think you underestimate Minnesota winters. More like subzero grade sleeping bags, jumper cables (and we know how to sue them safely), shovel, something to use for traction, non-perishable food, something to use for water / to melt snow, water proof matches, flashlight and batteries, first aid kit (and the knowledge to use it), some sort of emergency light that flashes red, emergency radio with batteries, and usually one of those air horns in a can, shovel ... you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteOur gas stations sell smaller less comprehensive emergency kits which at the very least include those silver space blankets in lieu of warmer protection.
Dog Gone, glad to hear you take your safety seriously and are willing to be an active participant in your own rescue. Japete over at Common Gunsense is from Minnesota and believes anyone that takes such precautions such as sleeping bags and first aid kits is paranoid. When asked what her plan of action was should she acquire assistance was to just call 911 and sit in her car and wait.
ReplyDeleteFWM, wrote: "Japete over at Common Gunsense is from Minnesota and believes anyone that takes such precautions such as sleeping bags and first aid kits is paranoid. When asked what her plan of action was should she acquire assistance was to just call 911 and sit in her car and wait."
ReplyDeleteAnd most of the time Japete would be correct as to what one does. What you may not realize WFM, is that a majority of Minnesotans live in the extended St. Paul / Minneapolis metropolitan area. Most Minnesotans have the presence of mind to dress appropriately to the weather, and for most problems, in the metro area, what you describe would be perfectly adequate in nearly all circumstances.
If one were even outside the metro, but was stranded for example along one of the interstates, you could still in most circumstances survive reasonably well, mostly risking frostbite, with that reasoning.
When venturing further afield, better precautions are necessary.
I grew up in the metro, but currently live out in the country where that is not an option. More than that, I have always been ...shall we say adventurous?
My father used to joke (not very happily) that invariably the worse a blizzard or other weather conditions, the further away from home I would be, in transit. So, I have always simply kept necessary gear on hand in my vehicles.
Perhaps Japete is less adventurous in her driving habits. I also put a priority on learning good winter driving skills, as well as things like how to safely and effectively enjoy offroading.
As a woman woh is shall we say adventurous....I never think it is a good idea to rely on someone else to come to my rescue as a damsel in distress. More likely the other way round.
I'm reasonably competent to handle being stranded in wilderness conditions, although it would be unlikely that I would ever get lost in the first place. I certainly konw how to leave a trail for others to find me if I did, can start a fire under adverse conditions, etc.
Beerme, Thanks for coming by and leaving a comment. I think you've got me wrong though. I don't want to take anybody's rights away. In my ideal world, you would be slightly more inconvenienced than you are now, that's it, assuming you're an honest law-abiding citizen of course. And by slightly more inconvenience to you, guns would be very much more difficult for criminals and mental patients to get.
ReplyDeletePlease don't forget that all the guns in the wrong hands first passed through hands like yours. They all start out legally owned. So stop pretending the criminals and mental cases will always get their guns. They won't to the degree they do now if we control you legal guys better.