Lessons We Should Learn from Rep. Gifford's Shooting

Remove all ads!

One thing I have learned after working with institutionalized mentally ill people is that there is a huge difference between someone who gets depressed during the winter or stressed out during certain situations. Crazy people are *crazy* they are not mildly odd, they are bonkers. The difference between your everyday neurosis and a full out psychosis is like the difference between a mild cold and cancer throughout your entire body. These people need help but sadly they do not get help until they do hurt themselves or someone else. You will not spot it when you pass someone on the street but any deeper exposure to a properly insane person should set off alarm bells everywhere. The big institutions of the past were bad, I have worked with people who worked there and the horror stories they tell are horrifying but dumping them on the streets and relatives until they get violent doesn't work either. I think we could have proper institutions now as well and I think we have the knowledge to not use them to get rid of the unwanted. Just as I heard horror stories from the old asylums I also heard wonderful stories of insane people having a home, a community, somewhere they could feel safe with things to do and the comfort of routine and people looking after them.

 

Chandos, I'm not sure which of the two responses I'm supposed to respond to, as you're responding to my quote in essentially two different ways. I guess I'll just respond to them individually.

I really don't think you're getting the point that I'M NOT against greater restrictions on guns. We make drugs illegal because they are destructive. It doesn't solve the problem of drug use, but it's arguably better than being a country that openly condones the practice of drug use. Same goes for tighter restrictions on making guns available. We won't solve the problem of crazies and hardened criminals obtaining guns, but we make it harder and show that, at least, we have learned from our mistake.

With this quote, I feel like I'm talking to a different person, someone who is getting my point. I agree, make it harder. Why are you violently agreeing with me?

 

Because I'm being rhetorical and not literally disagreeing with you.

Note: In both cases the shooters bought guns legally. How do you know that if they had not been able to buy guns so easilly that they may not have gotten help before they had murdered anyone? You don't, and neither do I. I do know one thing, that throwing our hands up and saying "there is no solution" isn't much of solution for anything and pretty worthless.

 

Making a rhetorical point is fine and good, but because you're directing it at me, you're effectively making me the example of that rhetorical point. But since we're not actually disagreeing about anything, well, put yourself in my shoes. How would you respond if someone tried to paint you as an example of how common sense has gone out the door, when you know you in fact have not made a comment worthy of such a statement?

 

I guess I should have put that in bold text.

 

What reason does one have for needing such a gun, ever?

 

Well, bold text wouldn't have explained why you were you picking on me at all, which is what I'm struggling to understand.

 

I think you're skipping a few steps between the extremes of 'nothing can be done until someone shoots someone else' and 'the police can lock anyone up for anything'. In the current structure, psychologists are only allowed, and legally required, to break confidentiality if there is a strong reason to believe the patient will hurt themself or someone else. Being mildly depressed or over-stressed generally doesn't raise to that level. There's a huge difference between Seasonal Affective Disorder or ADHD and a psychotic break or full blown paranoid schizophrenia. I would suggest a legal structure whereby someone brought to the court's attention can be examined by one or more psychologists/psychiatrists, and the same standards, and protections, that are applied to psychologists breaking confidentiality are applied to confining someone. That may not be the best, or it may need tweaking to work, but I think it would at least serve as a starting point for any discussion on the idea of safety mechanisms.

IMO, what you're objecting to here is the stigma of an investigation. I believe that's a social problem, and one that can be found in any number of situations, and that it shouldn't bar the law from such investigations where warranted. Obviously, they should be conducted with as little public attention and intrusion into the subject's life as possible, but I don't think it's a good enough reason to scratch the whole idea.

There's also the fact that a teacher can usually get away with this with little consequences (as I understand it). Starting an investigation may be just as easy and safe, but actually locking someone up may well risk the careers, or even freedoms, fo the psychologists who authorize it.

The issue here is detection and reduction of chances. Sure, we won't be able to stop all crazies everywhere from getting their hands on weapons of any kind, but we can at least keep most of them away. That raises the challenge of, 'from whom', though. Sure, 'crazies' is an easy group to target, but what defines 'crazy', and how are we to identify them? Is that guy walking down the street a 'crazy'? What about the woman who just walked into your cubicle?

Actually, I'm growing to like this idea, and I'd like to link it into another (which may not be constitutional, but I'd like to see if it could work): Replace the current idea of keeping the guns from the people with an idea of keeping the people from the guns. What I mean by that is that we mostly scrap things like gun registration and replace it with a firearms license. You go to the government and get a license to own a firearm, with a legal requirement that the standards not be onerous (to protect the second ammendment). They put you through a psychological screening, a background check, and mandate firearms safety training. Then, if you've passed all of the above, you get a gun license, like a car license. You show that whenever you want to buy a gun (and maybe they enter a serial number into a database to ensure you are the one who got the license) and you can buy a gun. No waiting period, no fuss, no muss, because it was all taken care of in getting the license, not the gun. Maybe we could even have differenc licenses for longarms, handguns, and concealed carry, with different levels of training for the different types of weapons?

It does restrict the population of crazies that can get a gun, though. I don't know about you, but if I wanted to buy an illegal gun, I honestly wouldn't know where to go, and odds are good I'd end up getting myself killed if I tried. Sure, there are probably plenty of crazies that do know, but at least the ones that don't would be screened.


I have also learned recently that I was wrong in my initial post. In Arizona, at least, anyone can begin the process of bringing someone before the court for a psychological evaluation. I don't know what protections and processes are in place as it stands, but it turns out that people could have done something and didn't. Now, I don't expect your average college student to know all about that, but the itself college at least should have.

 

Because the text says: I'm not picking on you. I also asked you not to take it that way. But you still are, regardless of what I wrote. I'm addressing a rhetorical agrument that, at least in part, you used.

Because America is the greatest country on the planet and we have the most freedom and liberty. But we need to be "armed to the teeth" to protect ourselves from ourselves and our government. That much should be just perfectly clear to anyone.

 

You know, in this case and in a lot of cases (including one that I have referenced before, but here's a link) everyone frigging knows the guy is unstable and has known it for some time. It's situations like this when you say "somebody should have done something sooner." These sorts are not just suffering from some minor depression or delusions, but have demonstrated dangerous anti-social behaviour for an extended period of time.

The $64,000 question seems to be, how can we "do something" without violating the person's precious individual rights? It's a tough situation. Make a mistake in good faith and you have a lawsuit on your hands and possibly lose your job. So you don't act and then wonder when a tragedy occurred if you could have prevented it. I'm not throwing my hand up by any means, but I think it is a difficult balance to find and we'll never strike it perfectly -- we'll strive and strive, as living organisms do for homeostasis, and in that striving we will hopefully reduce tragedies, and in addition, improve as societies.

 

What you wrote is that you were not picking on me in particular, which implies that you were picking on me in general (i.e. me and all the other wack jobs who think like me).

The point that you were quoting, to mention it again for context, was:

I don't see this as being evidence or support for your point that common sense has gone out the window in the US. So I would propose that you could have made your argument more effectively by simply omitting my quote altogether. Because I was neither an example of what you wanted to get across nor an appropriate target for picking on in the particular sense, the general sense or in any sense.

 

LKD - I'm just curious, but would these shooters have been allowed to the guns they used legally in Canada?

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 22 seconds later... ----------

No really, it doesn't. I would have wrote, "you and all those who think like you." And, if I really thought you were a "whack job," I would have added exactly that on the end, since it would have been even more fun, [even though I don't think you are a whack job]. See the difference?

 

I'm not picking on you either, so don't take it that way, but this just goes to show that the USA is filled with mentally unstable people who are on the verge of snapping any second, and will blow you to bits if you're not careful or you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Beware!

Spoiler

My best CtR imitation

 

Ah, I'm glad you understand my sarcasm.

 

I understand sarcasm, and I also understand repetition (i.e. I can quote something someone says and talk about something completely unrelated too).

I also now understand that you meant not to pick on me in any way, as you have said as much, which means that your decision to quote me in your earlier post was simply an act of utter randomness.

I think I'm completely clear now on this one....

 

I'm not up to speed on either the gun that Jared Loughner used or Canadian gun laws -- I don't have detailed knowledge. However, I will say a few things. Given what little I do know about Jared Loughner's weapon, I doubt he would have been able to legally acquire it here. And that's a good thing. I mean, for hunting, how big a magazine do you need? Or even for home defense? I get the impression that Loughner had an enormous clip with over 20 rounds? Holy Crap!*

However, in the Mayerthorpe incident, this Roszko piece of excrement was already under a ban on gun ownership, and he had several guns anyway. Laws mean nothing if there is no enforcement of said law.

I may be conservative, but I'm no dummy. We demand that people pass a test before driving a vehicle. Why shouldn't we demand they pass a test and display some capability before owning a gun? I know the NRA's answer, and while I don't despise them as much as others do, I think in this instance they are wrong. Screening processes are the moral thing to do.

*I require a number placed on "high capacity" magazine. How many rounds exactly?

 

Good. I'm glad you continue to understand. I took a very small quote out of your larger remarks, much of which we agreed upon, to make a more general point regarding that basic point, and expanded on it, leaving your larger point untouched; and then adding a preface on it so you would understand what I was doing. That way we would not need, say...another 7 or 8 posts, going back and forth to add clarity. But I'm glad that was not necessary.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

LKD - Well, I know you are conservative, but I was wondering if you felt as if your rights or libeties were diminished because of your gun laws in Canada.

I think he got off 30 or so shots on one magazine, and it was when he tried to change the magazine that he was stopped.

 

@ LKD,

Loughner had a 30-round clip, and though there is no standard clip size for a Glock 9mm (they range from 6 - 18 rounds), the most common clip holds 15 rounds. I believe anything over 20 rounds for a handgun is considered "high capacity," especially if the magazine extends beyond the bottom of the gun grip.

 

I'm no big gun advocate and will never be a NRA member, but I own a handgun. Of course it locked up in a safe that my kids will never be able to open. I don't think the solution is more controls. The solution is helping the troubled. We do it now, but possibly more help is needed?

 

You know, I guess this is just the way things work in the Alleys, but I still find it amusing how hard people fight to make their points in these forums. Right about now, I think the most appropriate response from you to me is, "you know what, you're right. Upon looking at my post again, I can see it was a bit unclear that I quoted one part of your post, but was actually commenting on another part, and really didn't mean to include you anyway." But is that what you're doing? Of course not.

I never would have been a good lawyer, because I'm far too reasonable a person. When I'm right, I'm right. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. When I'm wrong, I don't try to pretend that I am still right (at least, not most of the time). At any rate, in spite of your attempt to clarify, your original intent simply wasn't clear. I think that my previous post to demonstrate that (reply #31) was crystal clear, so I won't repeat what I said there.

I don't think there is a "solution" at all. We're a nation of 300 million. We're going to have some crazies, and we won't be able to stop some of them from doing bad things.

The best we can do is take measures to reduce the occurrences (which by definition doesn't solve the problem, and therefore isn't a solution). I think the measures that need to be taken are numerous.
-Tighter restrictions on gun purchases is one such measure, and this can be done relatively easily.
-Helping the troubled? Sure. We should do this, but this is a lot tougher in practice to make happen. Who are the troubled? Who is going to help them? Who is going to pay for that help? People don’t walk around with signs on their head that say “Future Gunner”, so the logistics of this approach are tricky, to say the least.
-Parents raising their kids to value life, and loving their children is another possibility. But again, we’ve already established that in a country of 300 million, we’re going to have bad apples, and that goes for the parent, not just the kids. They say it starts in the home, but that works for good and/or for bad.

I guess the best thing any individual can do is simply be on their guard. Don’t take unnecessary risks. And realize that life is fragile. It can be taken at any moment, so enjoy it to the fullest.