Aurora Colorado Violence

Well, since you ask ... the Middle East peace talks I was chairing broke down irreparably over the status of East Jerusalem, my search for a cancer cure is currently in hiatus due to a shortage of stem-cells, and Christina Aguilera is no longer returning my calls ... so I really have nothing better to do.

Do they? Here's a pistol (a Luger) with what you specified before was a "semi-pistol grip": But the bill doesn't consider pistols to be "unacceptably assault-weapon-ish." That's the point - despite banning rifles with pistol grips, pistols with pistol grips are perfectly OK provided that they lack other identified "dangerous" features. But if a pistol grip is dangerous on a rifle, I fail to see by what basis a pistol grip is any less dangerous on a pistol. But this is a military weapon:The US military issued over 1.5 million such rifles to servicemen between the rifle's introduction in 1959 to the present day; as DA noted in the other thread, the M14 assault rifle is still in widespread service.Yet it has no pistol grip, no flash suppressor, no forestock grip, nor any of the other characteristics identified in the "assault weapons" ban with the result that the rifle was not banned by the 1994 law.So is it the military, here, that doesn't know what it's doing - equipping servicemen with a rifle no more dangerous than a varmint gun - or is it maybe the lawmakers who don't know what they're doing?Here's another pistol-grip-lacking military weapon, the famous P90:A truly tremendous gun, but this weapon certainly lacks a "grip that allows you to hold it at more or less right angles to the direction it's pointing". This gun didn't exist at the time of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and aside from the high-capacity magazine and select-fire mode (both of which are options, not intrinsic to the rifle) it's difficult to see any basis on which a singlefire version of this rifle would have been blocked by that law.But is that because it's a less dangerous gun? I don't see how that could possibly be the case, and again, this is a rifle in military use. So, again, is it the world's militaries who don't know what they're doing, or might it have been the lawmakers who wrote the Federal "assault weapons ban" without having any relevant criteria for what actually constitutes a "dangerous" rifle?

A pistol grip on a semi-automatic or automatic rifle, submachine gun or machine gun makes it easier to shoot someone at close-in situations than just with a stock without a pistol grip. Hence, one of the reasons this is used to qualify it as an 'assault' rifle. It is probably easier to use and more stable when used in a close-quarters gun fight i.e. a room by room sweep with a firearm without a pistol grip than with one.The Navy still uses the M14 because a) it is still meets its purpose in providing force protection but also b) it is very expensive to switch out weapons for the entire fleet (though some commands have replaced them entirely). So it is a little of both. Is the M14 the most effective weapon we should use in close quarters situations. Probably not, it is a 60+ year old firearm, but we have to weigh-in cost vs benefit in replacing them. We do however supplament them with the M16 and other weaponry.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Take the gun talk to the gun thread. Next one gets a timeout.

for some unknown reason the admin is closing this thread down, so I guess we have to talk about this in another thread.

Took it to the gun thread...Don't suspend me you guys!- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

James Holmes was under psychiatric care from Dr. Lynne Fenton, she is the director of student mental health services at the University of Colorado's Anschutz Medical Campus. Dr. Fenton was sent a package that the JH defense now wants returned. I can only wonder what this package contained, Fox has went as far as saying it was a notebook detailing his plans to attack others. I wonder the same things Fox does, when did she get and read this? Could this have been stopped by his psychiatrist?I really don't know the ins and outs on Dr./patient confidentiality when it comes to a clear threat to public safety, or whether JHs package would constitute Dr. Fenton calling the authorities? I do know doctors can have you committed.Unfortunately this case should be interesting to follow. Did JH plan on an insanity plea, from what he posted on Adult Friend Finder and Match,com in addition to sending a package of (???) to his psychiatrist he seems to have thought out all of this. Buying guns and ammo for 3 months prior to the attack doesn't help his case either.I think it could all come down to him knowing right from wrong, and I feel he did or else he would have never asked " will you come see me in prison" on his profiles for Match and Adult FF. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

I wish Batman would go visit the little puke in prison and whoop his ass.

Hi fearandloathing, Right, and it would be instructive to compare the level of psychiatric care between the US and similar countries.IIRC Reagan shut down a lot of psychiatric care, especially for vets, that dumped a lot of people out onto the streets with no safety nets.Enjoy

I know nothing about the details of American healthcare. In Britain what tends to happen is1) Consultation with GP
2) Referral to a specialist
3) Patient decides between drugs and therapies or both.
4) If prescribed medication, it costs about $10/month regardless of actual price. Various therapies, such as group talk therapy or CBT, if chosen, are entirely free.In the case of something serious like some psychosis related illnesses such as schizophrenia one might lose one's driver's licence - and probably face losing their job, depending on your job and your employer. I suppose in the States there might be complications related to insurance.But the health services are pretty good - if one can be motivated to take advantage of them. Early intervention centres in the case of illnesses like schizophrenia (and I know there are some such centres in the States, based on a quick google search on the topic). There is a certain trend of recalcitrance in schizophrenics et al, so there's always a struggle to keep them following treatment.Here in Britain we make medication cheap, and easy to access and we try to give the 'service user' the choices in their treatment, offering CBT and other related treatments as needed/wanted.I'm guessing America has some pretty good treatment plans for people displaying disturbing divergences from reality. Though I'm thinking that anti-psychotics are prescribed like candy, and those that refuse are pressured to do otherwise. That 'schizophrenia' (a term which is becoming questionable) counts as a 'pre-existing condition', making insurance options/premiums rise to potentially unaffordable levels. But that's just a Brit's eye view - perhaps you could fill me in?I'm actually quite curious because my other half is currently building a training package for our workplace to raise awareness of mental health issues and tackle the associated stigma. I think Britain isn't perfect, but I think it's a passing grade.That being said - the belief that the mentally ill are more likely to be criminally violent isn't quite so clear when the evidence is examined (it may still be true, but the effect is much smaller than public perception). It might be based on the fact that a hugely disproportionate amount of mentally ill people, especially psychotics, are either homicidal or suicidal in American film and TV. This can lead to a sort of Availability Heuristic effect going on. Especially combined with the fact that the mental health of a person is almost always mentioned in the news only when a person is mentally ill and they have committed a violent crime.I don't think there is any healthcare system in the world which will completely prevent all mentally ill persons committing terrible crimes, and which is also a good mental healthcare system (of course, it should seek to reduce the number of such crimes as much as ethically possible). It would be a terrible system to make treatments mandatory. It would be terrible to deprive people of their liberty because they are ill (obviously for particularly bad cases these options may be necessary).As for what a doctor should do if a patient confesses to intrusive violent thoughts and fantasies? It's difficult because these symptoms commonly appear in mentally ill people with no subsequent violent behaviour. If you force medication on them, put them in a hospital against their will etc., you just deter ill people from talking about their problems out of (justified) fear.Intrusive thoughts occur with OCD, posttraumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, eating disorders, or psychosis.I think most people have experience intrusive violent and sexual thoughts before - even had violent or inappropriate sexual fantasies. It is not always obvious when these fantasies become 'a clear threat', until after the fact of course, see Hindsight bias.All that said, I think there is an overwhelming public interest in those documents should the exist. That way we can analyse it, along with other similar documents by other patients to see if there is anything there that truly is indicative of a threat to harm others. One of the signs a problem is brewing, I believe, is the development of a plan. So if this guy did have a specific plan, that should have raised an alarm - but then, that's why we say hindsight is 20/20.

Hi Modulous,My experience in Canada (at about the time Reagan was closing the psych wards) was they were much better at getting people into treatment, similar to England. I agree, but it could also lead more people to think that danger is out there and behave as if the guy down the street was "suspicious" -- a secondary effect. Complicated in the US by the whole freedom and liberty issues along with pride of independence etc etc. It would smack of "socialism" (= evil) to many just because of the way faux noise is always harping on such things. Which always seem to be found afterwards, and hard to get before. Perhaps a half-way measure, an open ward with observation with freedom to come and go (outside their home, with the possibility of getting a search if it seemed warranted), but that would put a lot of extra work load out there.Not an easy problem to solve. It may just be that there are too many people ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ps - it's time to lose the hat ...