[Dissociated Press] On the one-year anniversary of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, mental health experts across the nation are calling for better psychiatric care for the people who play such a pivotal role in mass shootings.
"Gun control advocates are nuts", noted Dr. Marcus Warren, president of the American Psychiatric Council, an umbrella group of mental health organizations dedicated to the mental health of the American public. "Nearly all of our mass shootings-- from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Fort Hood to Aurora Colorado to the Washington Navy Yard-- have been carried out because shooters were emboldened by the publicly declared fact that no one at any of these facilities is capable of armed self-defense."
Dr. Warren shook his head, clearly exasperated at the extent of untreated mental illness in our body politic.
"Gun-free zones are a lethal weapon. They attract mass shooters like a flame attracts moths. It's a crazy policy-- almost guaranteed to inspire mass shootings."
"Gun control advocacy is probably the most serious undiagnosed mental illness in the United States." Dr. Warren sighed. "Again and again gun control wackos enact lunatic legislation that demonstrably does nothing to curtail violence, and in fact, by declaring schools and countless public places across America as "gun free zones", clearly invite mass shooters to kill without fear of hinderance."
"Long before the Newtown shootings, gun control crazies in Connecticut passed some of the nation's most restrictive gun control laws." Warren observed. "By declaring Connecticut schools "gun free zones", these loons provided Adam Lanza-- a puny adolescent loser who could have been stopped if someone in the school had a BB gun-- with an opportunity to kill 26 defenseless people. Because Sandy Hook Elementary School had no armed security, and legal restrictions disarmed teachers and administrators who could have defended the children, Lanza knew he had at least ten minutes of complete freedom to kill at will."
"Gun control loons were Lanza's accomplices. They provided this demon with his theatre of defenseless innocents."
Dr. Warren shook his head. "There is no question about the diagnosis. Gun control advocacy is insane. It disarms victims, and emboldens killers. Why create buildings full of certified unarmed victims? After all, what is the definition of insanity? It's deficient reality testing, unhinged wishful thinking, and persistence in doing the same pointless thing that you've been doing over and over for decades, expecting a different result next time."
"We need to get these gun control psychos the help they need", Dr. Warren sighed, "before they kill again."
Absolutely right. The Australian experience confirms it. In 1996, one deranged gunman shot and killed 35 people at Port Arthur, a popular family excursion site.ReplyDelete
The newly elected conservative prime minister immediately made concealed handguns legal. A majority of school teachers now carry guns at work, as do kindergarten teachers and workers at child care centres and crèches. As do schoolbus drivers.
And since then there hasn't been a single firearm massacre.
It was realised that it would be too expensive to have a gun buy back, and to restrict gun ownership to those who absolutely need them.
We should just let Australia run the world. Maybe they could impose draconian gun control on Mexico and Russia, which now have such astronomical rates of mass shootings.Delete
Oh... wait... Mexico and Russia already have draconian gun control laws, more stringent than Australia, and they are war zones.
"Call the police, call an ambulance, and call for a pizza — then wait and see who shows up first."ReplyDelete
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, children are being gunned down by a lunatic who burns for his fifteen minutes of celebrity fame.
Of course, we could always outlaw guns completely. That worked really well with cocaine and crack.
You want cocaine and crack legalised?
You make a good argument, Adm. I am a bit uncomfortable with folks buying cocaine at my local 7-11, but the comparison with Prohibition and the argument for legalization are strong arguments.Delete
There are places where many drugs are legal-- Holland, etc. I don't know much about their experience with legalization, but it would be relevant.
I do agree that our current system is a disaster.
Doc, I share your discomfort. If it were between the 7-11 and Nowhere, I'd pick Nowhere. But that's not a realistic choice.Delete
So, IMO, better at the 7-11, in public, regulated, and under scrutiny, than in a bathroom. Perhaps the best way is to go the same route that has been, I think, reasonably successful for pseudoephedrine; networked, monitored purchase from pharmacies.
I have a lot of sympathy for the legalization movement, because the comparison to Prohibition is apt.
But I do think that we have paid insufficient attention to legalization that has been carried out in other countries. We need not rely entirely on theory-- people have tried this.
I have heard very little about the results, which I suspect is because the results were not as good as advocates had hoped.
One doesn't hear much about the results and that's worrisome. Transparency is critical. It would seem that Colorado's marijuana legalization has not lived up to its hype, but Alaska's is working out pretty well.Delete
Of course, these legalization regimes are generally drawn up by Progressives, which in itself almost guarantees abject failure and much scurrying around trying to hide results (cf. Obamacare, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Community Reinvestment Act, etc, etc, etc)
What we do not need is some 2000-page [insert name of dead child]'s Drug Abuse Recovery and Affordable Care Reinvestment Hope and Change Act of 20XX.
I agree. As a general principle, I support decriminalization of drug use, with the proviso that the actual policy has to be developed in light of the actual experience of other countries that have done it.
Intelligent policy, that is, which would sort of rule out Progressive involvement.
I stand firmly against the prohibition on marijuana.Delete
Not because I use it. I don't. I have. I don't know that I never will - but it certainly does not interest me like it does many others. I don't even drink regularly. What I mean to say is that I did inhale, and I did not grow man boobs, turn into a commie, or start stealing cars. Nor did anyone I know. I have seen people who abused (ie not simply used) the stuff get very lazy, paranoid, and centred on the next 'buzz'. But I have seen the same with beer drinkers, and that is not a crime. I have also seen close friends come back from the brink by using cannabis as a tool to enhance appetite and help them recover from chemical therapies. I have never seen that with scotch or beer...or cigarettes for that matter.
The reason I oppose prohibition is that it does not work at all for the purposes the proponents push it. It simply fills prisons and fuels a security state mentality. It keeps the ever increasing hoards of lawyers in business. Drug dealers do not ask for ID. There is no standard of quality control in the underground economy. These are the prime reasons I oppose prohibition on marijuana. The harder the drug, the harder the question. But, generally speaking I am against criminalizing the use of substances.
I mean think about it: It is your 'choice' to kill your unborn child, but it is a crime to smoke a cigarette made from a common, native plant.
The way I see it 'lock em up' should be the last resort in any non violent crime. Warehousing non violent, otherwise law abiding human beings is offensive to me. Why, I ask myself, are there sexual predators being allowed to walk free after a couple of years (or less) while there are others spending decades in prison for supplying a substance that people want?
What I find alarming about the whole 'mental health' vs 'gun control' debate is the dichotomy involved. The choice given is either a) be restricted in your rights to bare arms in order to maintain an artificial safety or b)allow boards of self designated restrict people's rights based on 'diagnosis' or the disorder de jour.ReplyDelete
In countries where 'mental health' is made a priority the powers are abused. I already know people in the US that are having their rights to own weapons removed (veterans) because some quack decided they were too 'stressed' by the conflict they have returned from. Men who have nothing wrong with them other than a dramatically altered perspective on the political machine.
In short I see these choices as false. There is no easy fix. Maniacs will kill people en mass. They will use the tools available.
As for Sandy Hook... the loss that day was unspeakable.
Being the parent of a toddler, it especially hits home to me.
Just last night I watched a couple of documentaries on the event.
I do have to say, though - there is much more to this event than meets the eye. The secrecy surrounding the event and two dimensional representation of the facts - the same narrative we always get - just does not jive. As a person who has been involved in securing some of the most dangerous places imaginable and dealing with some of the most fanatic, determined and often what would be considered 'crazy' and 'demented' enemies.... I just don't see the dots connecting.
Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting this event was a 'hoax' or that the 'government did it' or anything. Just that the spin, the PR, or whatever you want to call it was elaborate and that the secrecy and control of information for something we are supposed to believe is cut and dry just does not add up.
Some examples? Well, we are to believe Mr Lanza was 'sick' and this horrific episode was a result of that sickness. But if we correlate what Mr Lanza was suffering from with the event we hit a wall.
On the other hand if we correlate the medications he was on/off we do see a pattern. So is it the illness or the 'treatment'? On the other side of the dichotomy, we find all sorts of weirdness about 'prepping' and 'weapons hoarding' being pushed by the media. Again, if we correlate that with other people of that set, we find them to generally be the most responsible, law abiding weapons owners. There are many avid weapons collectors that are never a problem to anyone, in fact they educate others on the safety issues surrounding these tools.
But, if we take a look at Mr Lanza's motives, his ideology, the chat groups he frequented, the stories he read, the people he idolized - then we begin to see a pattern that matches many other killers of the same sort.
Finally there is the sheer amount of damage done by this single kid. Now, again, I am not saying this is impossible. I have seen the trail of destruction left by a handful of 14 year old, skinny, lads and it was some of the worst carnage I have seen in my life. My point is not that he could not have committed these acts, but that for a small, weak, relatively poorly trained, weighed down (40+ lbs) with gear and armour young fellow to have done all this in about 5 minutes is remarkable and does deserve some more attention than has been given. Could it be done? Sure. But not the way we have been sold on.
I think we owe it to the memory of these children to have some of these matters investigated properly, and the results made public.
Simply blaming guns or some disorder (or a synthesis) is far too simplistic.
All that said, the loss is the same no matter how you look at it.
And what a terrible loss it is.
May God bless and keep their little souls, those of them who died along side them, and those who die every day when they think about their little ones passing in such an evil way....
C-Rex: "On the other side of the dichotomy, we find all sorts of weirdness about 'prepping' and 'weapons hoarding' being pushed by the media. Again, if we correlate that with other people of that set, we find them to generally be the most responsible, law abiding weapons owners."Delete
You hit that nail on the head and countersunk it.
The media can pander these stories about "prepping" and "weapons hoarding" only to pathetic gullibles who live in the Progressobubble and fell hook, line, sinker, rod and reel for the "bitter clinger" fairy tale.
I know people who possess and collect weapons, and who do so partly because they are deeply concerned about the fragility of the world we live in. In the Sixties, one relay, incorrectly set to be too sensitive, blacked out the entire Northeast grid (including Ontario) and put 30,000,000 people out of service. One small fire in a tandem central office in a Chicago suburb killed the telephone service over the entire area, isolated air traffic control at O'Hare Airport, and disrupted long-distance service all across the United States.
Imagine what a single EMP detonation 200 miles above Kansas would do, or even a NNEMP pulse from a hypersonic missile aimed at Manhattan or Los Angeles would do. Or what if they had, say, a big hurricane in New Orleans? Why, major, uncontrollable looting might occur and NOPD officers might simply leave the scene!.
If you aren't prepared, you aren't paying attention. Civilization is a fragile web, shielding us from a Darwinian world red in tooth and claw.
Too true. The trend of 'blaming the preppers' is an alarming one. Media Matters and groups like that are hell bent on making these people into villains. Hollywood and Prime-time, too. Why should people who 'prepare' for problems with food, weapons, water, medicine, etc be portrayed as a danger or problem? Why the constant attempts to link this basic, common sense behaviour to some ideology and specifically to these kind of horrific events?
Regardless or the abject failure of the media to do so (at least to anyone who cares to look into it), is besides the point.
Why the effort in the first place?
That is the alarming question to me.
More and more it looks like Satan has taken over American Christendom and Egnor wants to be a general in the armies of the Antichrist.ReplyDelete
What? Come again? I have no idea what you're on about. How is this statement related to anything being discussed here?
OK dimwit I’ll explain. Mr. Evil wants everyone to carry human murder machines.Delete
"Human murder machines"?Delete
Like the kind my father-in-law carried in France to defeat the Nazis?
KW. So before firearms were invented there was no murder?Delete
Oh, wait. St. Stephen stoned to death with rocks. Obviously the Roman Empire needed better 'rock control'. Hannibal and his army in one afternoon killed somewhere between 50 and 70 thousand Roman soldiers. All without any firearms.
Violence, you dimwit, has been with us forever. Until the invention of the gun violence was the province of young, strong, healthy males. Others were at their mercy. Now, with an assist from one of Colt's lifesaving inventions, granny can take down the muscle bound thug who just broke through the door.
Why do you hate women?
Human murder machines? I would say that guns are designed to kill, but not all killing is murder.Delete
Didn't you say that you work on weapons systems for the US Navy? Are those murder machines too, or only the ones used by citizens to protect themselves?
Hannibal was a good example of the need for better elephant control.
Samson was a good example of a need for more stringent donkey jawbone control. To this day, you can't buy a donkey jawbone without a license.Delete
Okay witless, you have forwarded something about killing machines (i suspect you mean fire arms?), but what does that have to do with Satan and the Anti-Christ? Was there some relevance, or are you just bent on mentioning those names/titles on a post about dead children?
The kid who shot up that high school in Colorado sounds a lot like Troy, actually. He was described by a classmate as a very opinionated socialist.ReplyDelete
"Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?”"
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of very opinionated socialists. That just falls under mental health. Warped minds should not be carrying guns.
I wonder what this very opinionated socialist's opinion on gun control was? I found the irony delicious when ex-cop Chris Dorner blasted a bunch of people then complained in his manifesto about the lack of gun control in America. (My immediate question--what lack of gun control?)Delete
I think that the media would be making quite a bit of hay out of the shooter's political beliefs if they were conservative. They always do.
John and Torch:Delete
If Dorner or the Colorado kid had been a Tea Partier, it would be headline news for months.
Doc, It would be headline news until at least the second week of November 2016.Delete
Fox is reporting the little Socialist who wanted to murder his teacher tried to do so because he or she kicked him off the debate team.ReplyDelete
I can understand how that might happen. Leftists get pretty rabid sometimes. They learn it watching MSNBC and reading the left-wing hate sites.
It's my understanding that practically every one of the school shooters going all the way back to Columbine, had been prescribed at one time or another, anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft. I tend to think that the presence these drugs with teenagers is a much bigger factor in their violence than the presence of guns. True story. I grew up in the deep South in the "60s. We had guns from my first memories. As teenagers we often took our shotguns and walked to the woods to shoot. Once we got lost in a vast wooded are and finally after a full day of wandering around, came out near an interstate highway many miles from home. We promptly threw our shotguns over our shoulders and started hitch-hiking on the interstate. It took about 30 seconds to get a ride in the back of a pick-up. Where I lived, in those days, no one was scared of teenagers with guns. I often tell that story to illustrate how times have changed.ReplyDelete
I do wonder about the effects of anti-depressants in some people, especially youths. Suicide is a very real issue with these drugs, and one wonders about rare acts of mass violence. No real science that I'm aware of on the violence issue, but it's troubling.
I had similar experiences as you did as a kid. I bought my first rifle at 12 years old (a 16 dollar single shot .22 that was my pride and joy-- I bought it with the money I earned from my first job-- blowing up balloons at a carnival-- I was a windbag even as a kid). I had free use of my dad's 12 gauge and his .35 lever action bear rifle. A lot of fun with my buddies.
Most boys I knew growing up (in rural upstate New York) had guns.
This paranoia today about guns is not only foolish, but it's deadly. It sets up a perfect storm of publicity and disarmed victims for evil people with violent grudges.
Elimination of gun-free zones, armed security in schools, and voluntary refusal of the press to cover these shootings except for the barest of details-- no name or picture of the shooter, no speculation on motives, and one-day coverage.
Obviously this would be a challenge in a horror like Newtown, but the obvious reality is that school shooters are motivated by publicity and imitation. An example of the effectiveness of this approach was a string of subway suicides in Vienna a few years ago. Each time the press covered a suicide on the front page, a spate of new suicides followed. The government asked to press to stop covering the suicides so sensationally. They stopped (they only reported with a brief article on page 20), and the suicide epidemic stopped abruptly.
People imitate. Mass shooters are motivated by grudges, raw evil, publicity, power lust, and the availability of easy victims. We can eliminate three of these five.
I could not agree more. The 'disorders' these murderous kids suffer from vary. But the theme of being 'medicated' runs right through this bloody mess.
Solution? More diagnosis by more head-shrinkers and, of course, more pills.
Take your soma.
I Googled "school shootings and antidepressants" and got dozens of links. Here's one story from Jerome Corsi who has been a lone wolf reporting on the link between teenage violence and psychotropic drugs. According to Dr. David Healy who Corsi interviewed, "Some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, according to British psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, a founder of RxISK.org, an independent website for researching and reporting on prescription drugs." Here's the link to the article published last year:Delete
I'm sure this is what the 'founding fathers' had in mind: a "well-regulated militia" of obese religious dimwits who couldn't shoot their way out of a paper bag. The would-be tyrants must be shaking in their boots.ReplyDelete
Can't you even vary insults?Delete
Have you cut your allegiance to Britain? England has just lost another wicket LBW in Perth. It's also stinking hot. Yesterday it was apparently 46 degrees on the pitch (that's 114 degrees Fahrenheit).
When in Rome. I still follow the football, but the cricket I only hear about from folks at home these days. I have been here a long time and have Canadian kids. So ice hockey is what I follow, as I once followed cricket and rugger. There are several divisions that interest us in that sport. The local (CHL) being the most interesting, as it is all the young, up and coming talents.
I must admit, I do watch the Lions once in a while...
LBW? That stinks.
As for the temps. I could use a little sunshine come late Jan or Feb, that's for sure. It's been a cold one so far and I suspect that come mid winter, palm trees will be an attractive idea.
I don't mind the cold, really. But, it's nice to get a change in the middle of the season.
I prefer my heat around the 28-33C range. That's just about perfect for me. If it's bone dry or I am spending a lot of time in the water, I don't mind it a bit warmer again... but 46C is a little too warm for my tastes.