Sandy Hook could have been prevented

[Sunseeker]

you a parsing words. technically you are right it is not a metal diseses but a mental disorder
but it is a disorder that can be treated through therapy

It can, but many people live their lives just fine without it, they never kill anyone, they never even hurt a fly. So why MUST they get treatment because this one guy went crazy?

[ipaq]

OT: It couldn't have been prevented by the method you mention because Lanza wasn't mentally ill. He had Asperger's syndrome and was a heavy introvert. I have both Asperger's syndrome and am a heavy introvert as well, i just try to socialize more than he apparently did, even though i often don't like it.

I wouldn't worry much about it if I was you.

There is no one perfect and most of the professions dealing in the well being of the mind will always find something wrong.

The goal is to deal with it...

Now in that case...

[Vyxn]

The mentally ill are not some form of killers in waiting. Not to mention that while the body is developing it goes through all sorts of physical and hormonal changes which can have all sorts of effects on a young mind. You can't start running around saying that Jimmy is depressed or schizophrenic or bi-polar when Jimmy hasn't even been taught how to express his feelings properly, much less how to understand the rules of society or is just a damned kid trying to be a damned kid!

And this is why we have professionals to make that determination people who went to college for many years to learn the deference between a kid with a mental illness and a kid just being a kid

I have no idea what you're saying here.

The only thing I'm in favor of is something with actual scientific backing, not knee-jerk idiotic reactions that scapegoat people who are "different". This argument would get laughed out of the room if you replaced "mentally ill" with "black".

I'm under the assumption you was one of the "lets ban guns to keep this from happening" crowd

[Ethes]

Why are you so against the possibility of infringing on a person civil rights to prevent a tragedy but do not hesitate to infringe on another right for the same reason

Although this wans't directed at me, I personally feel that there is a huge difference between infringement of human rights and the 2nd amendment.

[Vyxn]

First off the bat, you can't force treatment on somebody as that is a violation of human rights. You can't lock them up, you can't feed them medicine and if your treatment consists of having conversations with the patient, he/she can simply refuse to talk.

If people do receive help, informing 3rd parties (whether it's the police, parents or something else) is a strong violation of the individual rights of that person unless somebody clearly poses a threat to themselve or others in which case this is for the greater good.

As for people who're saying, let's just screen everybody and make a list. First of all, you don't want that as you'll end up with things like selective insurance and all other kinds of bad things. Secondly, it is not the governments job to do this. If a parent notices something odd with their child, they should take action. Thirdly, I don't doubt it is relatively easy to 'cheat' such a screening into having a 'clean' repututation, so all in all it seems like quite a useless idea.

I think responsibility lies with parents and citizens as the parents are the ones who have great influence on their children, should notice odd behavoir (granted the assumption that they spend some time with their children) and are generally responsible for their children. As for American citizens, they're the ones who keep on carrying the tools for tragedies like these, keep on protecting their ancient rights and yet when somebody does start shooting up a school, there is nobody who is carrying these 'rights' to stop them.

In order to do something about situations like these I would try to improve mental heathcare where possible while making sure people their rights aren't violated (as in, distributing personal information, forcing them medicine or locking them up). I would inform parents about possible mental illnesses, make sure there is a good information structure about it and teach them to be responsible parents in general.

On the other hand I would regulate guns. The right to bear arms is from centuries ago and made sense back then, however it doesn't make sense today in a modern, first world country. If this so-called 'right to protect yourself' is actually working, I would be interested in stories that read "Heroic citizen saves school from mass murder" or "Citizen prevents rape" or "Citizen detains bank robbers". It's actually likely that they're out there, but the real question that should be asked is would that have been nessecairy if the gun laws were different.

As for personal safety, I would encourage everybody to read this blog, as the sources he uses are pretty decent. Generally seen, people think they need a gun to protect themselves because other people all carrying weapons as well. In their term, criminals think they'll need bigger and heavier weapons. Well, you can see where that is going! Which brings us back to the issue of guns being easily accessable for everybody and anyone.

If you would remove most guns from public society (I'd would leave guns around for hunting purposes) and create safety regulations, psychological tests, increased responsibility for your weapons (if your kid goes Rambo with it, you should be partially responsible), etc. In order to obtain a hunting weapon, rules similar to those in Japan make sense:



Source

If you read the whole article, you'll find out Japan has one of the lowest amount of gun deaths in the world.

So, TL;DR:

- Improve mental healthcare
- Increase parent responsibility
- Inform parents about mental illness
- Remove the majority of weapons from the general public
- Increase weapon ownership's responsibility
- Do all this without violating human rights

Here we are again with the hypocrisy of fighting to keep one right from getting violated but advocating for another right to be infringed upon

And for your information which i stated many times in this thread the right to bear arms wasn't given just for protection against an individual and or a wild beast but protection against a tyrancal government foreign or domestic
the founding fathers understood we owed or independence from England thanks to an armed civilian population

and about Japan it has more to do with it culture then it has to do with gun control why they have lass gun violence they have less violence in general
Switzerland has the highest gun ownership rate in the world but they have one of the the lowest gun violence
so you cant equate more gun control = less gun violence

[Sunseeker]

And this is why we have professionals to make that determination people who went to college for many years to learn the deference between a kid with a mental illness and a kid just being a kid

Okay, so they have a mental illness? Does that mean they're going to become a killer? There are dozens of mental illnesses, all varying in degrees of severity. I get that mental health professionals are trained to deal with these kinds of things but even they make mistakes. They are only human.

I'm under the assumption you was one of the "lets ban guns to keep this from happening" crowd

No, I'm not and I never have been.

[Roose]

Problem number one is the massive ignorance about mental illness. The gutting of mental health programs shows that people have no idea how terrible the system already was. In my state we all but removed funding to mental health.

I have no idea what the shooter's mother did to seek help for her son. I know that she had to spend a lot of time with him. I know that in my experience the mental healthcare options available to the public are not very good. Doctors do not make money focusing their time on the state facilities.

Maybe this will make people decide that funding mental healthcare is important.

@OP, you obviously have no idea wtf you are talking about. Stop speaking for the mentally ill and go read up on some facts before stereotyping the mentally ill as crazed killers.

[ipaq]

Here we are again with the hypocrisy if fighting to keep one right from getting violated but advocating for another right to be

And for your information which i sated many times in this thread the right to bear arms wasn't given just for protection against an individual and or a wild beast but protection against a tyrancal government foreign or domestic
the founding fathers understood we owed or independence from England thanks to an armed civilian population

And you are responsible for 27 death because you refuse to evolve from 1791.

Infracted: Please post more respectfully and without inflaming the discussion.

[Ethes]

Here we are again with the hypocrisy if fighting to keep one right from getting violated but advocating for another right to be

And for your information which i sated many times in this thread the right to bear arms wasn't given just for protection against an individual and or a wild beast but protection against a tyrancal government foreign or domestic
the founding fathers understood we owed or independence from England thanks to an armed civilian population

Yes, which is still totally relevent in the 21st century.. Oh no wait, it isn't! Also thank you for not reading anything else I said!

[Defengar]

There are loads of people who become depressed/hopeless just like this kid. but 99.999% of them either deal with it, or just kill themselves without hurting anyone in the process.

I do think we need better mental institutions and care, but I think there is a thin line we need to be wary of crossing less we become a society forced as a whole to take pills and be docile automatons.

[drukai]

Councilors are not therapists, and few of them have any actual mental health training. What's worse is that school "councilors" are not bound by the same privacy laws that therapists and psychologists are, so if your kid says some funny things, that person is free to tell everyone they want to about it. Even if you explicitly ask them to keep it private they are under no obligation do so. Councilors don't help because they don't know how, and because people don't trust them, with good reason.

Yarp. It's amazing how much having someone who you can talk to and trust helps, and the costs to visit a therapist are WELL beyond what many lower income families can handle.

[Vyxn]

Although this wans't directed at me, I personally feel that there is a huge difference between infringement of human rights and the 2nd amendment.

A right is a right there isn't a degree of importance when it comes to rights
now if you want to argue the degree of importance the right to bear arms does come before the right to privacy in the constitution

[Kujako]

A right is a right there isn't a degree of importance when it comes to rights
now if you want to argue the degree of importance the right to bear arms does come before the right to privacy in the constitution

Should I be allowed to stockpile weaponized anthrax (you know, for dear hunting)? If not, then you too believe in limits on the 2nd amendment and we're only arguing over details.

[Sunseeker]

Yarp. It's amazing how much having someone who you can talk to and trust helps, and the costs to visit a therapist are WELL beyond what many lower income families can handle.

Not to mention in many places a therapist cannot treat a minor without parental consent, even if "treatment" is just talking to them, no drugs at all. So much for feeling like you have an issue that you can't discuss with your parents....that the law says you have to tell your parents about! Even worse, some states make exceptions to privacy laws for minors, mandating that even mental health professionals have to inform their parents that they're being treated...even if they can't say for what!

[drukai]

A right is a right there isn't a degree of importance when it comes to rights
now if you want to argue the degree of importance the right to bear arms does come before the right to privacy in the constitution

Yes there is. Your right to own a gun does not hold a candle to my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Vyxn]

Okay, so they have a mental illness? Does that mean they're going to become a killer? There are dozens of mental illnesses, all varying in degrees of severity. I get that mental health professionals are trained to deal with these kinds of things but even they make mistakes. They are only human.


No, I'm not and I never have been.

No system is perfect. I know we have innocent people in jail but that doesn't mean we scrap the whole system because mistakes can and have been made
and i apologize for assuming you was part of the lets ban gun crowd

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 03:07 PM ----------

Yes there is. Your right to own a gun does not hold a candle to my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Me owning a gun doesn't infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

And if you say it does then any instrument that can be used to take a life does

[Ethes]

Yes there is. Your right to own a gun does not hold a candle to my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Exactly what I was pointing at. Thank you

[Vyxn]

Exactly what I was pointing at. Thank you

And i willl reply the same to the post you refered to

Me owning a gun doesn't infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

And if you say it does then any instrument that can be used to take a life does

[drukai]

And i willl reply the same to the post you refered to

Me owning a gun doesn't infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

And if you say it does then any instrument that can be used to take a life does

Of course it doesn't. I am fine with you owning a gun, but someone who exorcises their rights cannot exorcise them to the extent that it infringes upon someone elses rights, and the inalienable rights take absolute priority over all other rights, and that's what people who hide behind the Constitution do not understand.

[Risale]

I can tell by your statements you don't know or understand why the founding father wrote the right to bare arms in the constitution it wasn't just for protection against their neighbors or wild beast it was for protection against tyrannical government foreign or domestic it was one of the checks and balance.s an extreme one but a needed one neither less

They understood the only way we earned our independence from England was because we had an armed civilian population

As the US had no standing army to speak of it made sense at that time, does it now?

Each state has its own national guard an as a country you have a huge miltary in all branches to protect you from foreign threats. The US can obliterate any nation on earth when it wants to by several means, tactical, nuclear, viral, biologic.

As far as I know the US is a democracy with frequent voting for both houses and the top job, same applies for each indivdual state so vote to make sure you don't have idiots or tyrants in office (the latter being easier then the former).
So my question is what domestic threats, you have armed police, federal agents, world renowned SWAT teams and to date all major domestic threats were handled by these brave (no sarcasm at all, i respect the boys in blue) people. Give us an example of US citizens needing guns to save their nation from domestic aggressors, one that wasn't dealt with by law enforcement local or federal.

The armed forces protect you from foreign enemies, the law from domestic. If that is the case and so far to me its exactly like that why do you need a gun if you are protected already, this is not the 17th century with the wolves at your door, this is the 21st century and the only risk you have is from those that have guns and do not belong to either the armed forces or the law.
Fact is more people in the US die each year due to guns than american soldiers having being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since the very start of Gulf War 2.
I found this also very very scary, in the US in 2000 there were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States this is for one single year in a no war enviroment, compare that to a war like Vietnam were from 1955 to 1975 a total of 58,209 soldiers killed.