quote:Teen survivors of the school shooting massacre in Florida last week are calling for a march on Washington to demand action on gun control.
Student organizers of the protest told ABC News' "This Week" Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday that they are determined to use protests and political action to make the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland, Florida, a turning point in the national debate over gun control.
The same kids appeared on all three weekly news shows, This Week, Meet the Press, and Face the Nation. The girl in the upper right (the kids kept the same seats on all the shows), Emma Gonzalez, also spoke at the rally (everyone: you want to watch this one - Emma is an inspiring speaker):
If the students can pull this off, I am going to try my best to participate.
It will always be the extremely rare case that mental health professionals are able to pre-identify mass murderers. Here's a list of mass murderers in the U.S. from Mass Shooting Perpetrators, find me one who could have been pre-identified:
Edward Charles Allaway, James Edward Pough, Carl Robert Brown, Omar Mateen, Robert A. Hawkins, James Oliver Huberty, Nathan Dunlap, George Hennard, Dylann Roof, Adam Lanza, Nidal Malik Hasan, Charles Whitman, Jeff Weise, Gang Lu, Patrick Sherrill, Barry Loukaitis, Esteban Santiago, Christopher Harper-Mercer, Gian Luigi Ferri, Mark Essex, Scott Evans Dekraai, Steven Kazmierczak, Jennifer San Marco, James Eagan Holmes, Michael McLendon, Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Elliot Rodger, Charles Carl Roberts IV, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, Robert Lewis Dear, Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden, Aaron Alexis, Wade Michael Page, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Patrick Edward Purdy, Gavin Eugene Long, Micah Xavier Johnson, Kyle Aaron Huff, One L. Goh, Stephen Paddock, and Devin Patrick Kelley
As the article says:
quote:Criminologist James Allen Fox said that most mass murderers do not have a criminal record, or involuntary incarceration at a mental health center, but an article in the New York Times in December 2015 about 15 recent mass shootings found that six perpetrators had had run-ins with law enforcement, and six had mental health issues.
Missing from the list is the most recent mass murderer, Nicholas Cruz, and it is an interesting question whether local law enforcement would have confiscated his gun had the FBI notified them (FBI field offices don't deal with such issues directly, they merely pass on information to local law enforcement). I very much doubt the gun would have been confiscated. As the family with whom Cruz was staying said, he presented as respectful, quiet and obedient, though sad about his mother's death.
Americans belief in the predictive power of psychology is seriously misplaced, as any psychologist will tell you.
Psychiatrist Agrees Mass Murderers Can't Be Pre-Detected
In her New York Times Opinion piece, The Mental Health System Can’t Stop Mass Shooters psychiatrist Amy Barnhorst describes the difficulties faced by mental health professionals trying to stop mass murderers. Here she describes a man she evaluated:
quote:A few years ago, the police brought a 21-year-old man into the crisis unit where I work as an emergency psychiatrist. His parents had called the police after seeing postings on his Facebook page that praised the Columbine shooters, referred to imminent death and destruction at his community college and promised his own “Day of Retribution.” His brother reported to the police that he had recently purchased a gun.
When I interviewed the patient, he denied all of this. He had no history of mental illness and said he didn’t want or need any treatment. My job was to evaluate whether he met the criteria to be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital. ... I ended up admitting this patient, and he was released by the hearing officer two days later. He never took any medication, never reached the threshold for a federal firearm prohibition and left the hospital in the same state he arrived in. Like so many of his peers, he will not seek out therapy for the longstanding personality traits that seem to predispose him to violence and rage, and there is no way to impose treatment upon him.
In these excerpts she describes the difficulties more generally:
quote:Mr. Cruz had suffered from depression and was getting counseling at one point. He was also evaluated by emergency mental health workers in 2016, but they decided not to hospitalize him. Why, some critics are demanding, didn’t he receive proper treatment? And can’t we just stop angry, unstable young men like him from buying firearms?
It’s much harder than it sounds.
The mental health system doesn’t identify most of these people because they don’t come in to get care. And even if they do, laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will.
Here in California, as in most states, patients must be a danger to themselves or others because of mental illness before they can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
Bottom line: Republican claims about beefing up the mental health care system is a smokescreen for doing nothing about guns.
Among those pushing this "theory" is Former Congress Jack Kingston from Georgia who believes that Soros has riled up these kids. In an interview with CNN, Kingston expresses skepticism that 17 and 18-year-old teens are capable of chartering a bus to a scheduled meeting or that their peers in other states are capable of showing solidarity and scheduling protests of their own.
Just to cast further ridicule on this, at age 14 me and a friend were already taking the train from New Jersey into New York City to buy firecrackers for resale. By age 16 I was taking buses with the chess club to tournaments in New York City, Atlantic City, Philadelphia and Baltimore where we found our own hotel arrangements and somehow managed to even eat. By age 17 I was driving all over, including as far south as Virginia. And by normal teenage standards I was by no means adventurous. Wherever does Mr. Kingston come by such colossal naiveté?
We who think gun control is not the right response to these shootings naturally have a question why that is the solution proposed by the students. Could be leftist interference, no reason why that's not a possibility.
We who think gun control is the right response to mass shootings (especially for what are in reality weapons of war) naturally question why that solution is not obvious to everyone. Could be rightist brainwashing, no reason why that's not a possibility.
quote:When people act like cretins, should they be ignored? Does talking about their misdeeds merely give them oxygen?
Maybe so. But the sliming — there is no other word for it — of the survivors of last week’s Florida high school massacre is beyond the pale.
Here is the often-appalling pundit Dinesh D’Souza, outright mocking the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, after they showed their disappointment in a state legislature vote on assault weapons on Tuesday: “Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs.”
Recall for a moment: These are teenagers whose friends were brutally murdered a week ago. ... Legitimate disagreement over policy issues is one thing. Lies, conspiracy theories and insults are quite another.
I think it's reprehensible that gun control becomes this huge leftist cause every time there is a shooting like this, using an emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side.
I think it's disgraceful that each mass shooting is followed by repugnant rightist objections, slanders, conspiracy theories and lies, especially of students who have just witnessed the slaughter of classmates.
I'm actually for more gun control but this is the wrong way to get it,...
There is no right way to convince rightist gun wingnuts that we need gun control.
...and when you have teenagers supporting the standard leftwing position I don't trust it anyway.
And when you have rightist nutcases like Donald Jr. liking slanders of traumatized students expressing their opinions and feelings the right has lost all moral authority.
I want some gun control but I may have to take it back about wanting as much as Israel has.
I'm taking back my "Cheer" of that post.
I'd probably want more strictness about the qualifications for individuals, not just a blanket banning of guns for particular individuals.
We must begin by addressing the most extreme case, mass murder, even though it represents only a small proportion of all murders. That means eliminating the right of Americans to own weapons of war.
Next we must address the gun problem. Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or your family or friends will be shot or murdered. Gun nuts only advance invented reasons for keeping their guns, such as self defense. If they were truthful they'd just say, "I like guns, don't take my fun away." It wouldn't be a good reason, but it would at least be honest.
If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting, trying to pre-empt other points of view, there wouldn't be this predictable exchange of insults every time.
"Now is not the right time" has become a blatant rightest tactic to avoid talking about gun control.
Make the case in a neutral time rather than trying to manipulate public opinion at the most emotional possible time.
This is just BS. It has become deadly obvious that this is just a discussion avoidance strategy.
And calling us wingnuts doesn't help.
If the word fits...
Being polite to gun nuts who never return the favor but just take advantage has never proven an effective strategy. Prove I'm wrong by condemning those slandering the Parkland students. Oh, wait, you can't do that because you're slandering them yourself.
Gun nuts who support the NRA, and of course the NRA itself, are complicit in murder, and politicians who accept their money must own the blood on their hands.
I'm for more gun control...
Like what? Likely you're for any ineffective gun control measure. I bet you're in favor of more mental health efforts and against taking away assault weapons.
...but I'm also a defender of the second amendment...
Why? It is responsible for the US having more gun-related deaths per capita by far than any other nation in the civilized world.
...and I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.
Yes, your wingnuttiness, more guns in schools is the reasonable solution. Let's have shootouts in schools while also increasing the likelihood of gun accidents.
Actually, what Israel does is make sure the most vulnerable places are protected by allowing more armed people there.
Are you supporting the Israel solution again?
That's the same kind of solution as arming teachers in schools, where the shootings always happen.
No, the shootings don't always happen in schools. They happen all over (more on that later), and boy you've got a short memory. The Las Vegas concert shooting where 56 were killed and 851 injured was just a few months ago.
By "arming teachers in schools" do you include all the requirements and training as in Israel? What if teachers want to teach instead of being turned into armed guards? Who's going to pay for the training and the guns? Who's liable if an armed teacher makes a mistake and shoots the wrong person or mistakes a contraption from metal shop for a gun?
Wouldn't it be much easier to just get rid of all weapons that make it very easy to fill the air with high velocity lead?
Here's an actual hunting rifle, it fires three shots before reloading:
Here's an AR15 assault weapon. It fire 30 shots as quickly as you can pull the trigger before reloading (made easy by the plug-in magazine), and it can be fitted with a bump stock to turn it into a machine gun. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to be in possession of such a gun:
Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No. Hand guns for self defense? These cause the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S., so no.
I don't care who is armed, just some people who are charged with protecting the children, and it shouldn't take more than a few. Same wherever there is such a danger.
Since a gun is portable, where isn't there danger? The list of places where mass shootings have occurred includes schools, colleges, night clubs, concerts, churches, McDonalds, army bases, navy yards, movie theaters, places of business, Indian reservations, immigration centers, post offices, restaurants, and so forth. The question with a much shorter answer would be, "Where hasn't there been a mass shooting?" Phone booths?
We have a problem with crazed shooters these days.
There is no evidence of diminished mental health in the U.S. versus other western countries. We have a problem with guns.
One could spend some time trying to figure out why,...
The only people who need to "spend some time trying to figure out why" are those trying to avoid an answer. The obvious answer to "why" is guns.
...possibly to good purpose,...
"Possibly to good purpose"? Getting rid of the guns is obviously to a "good purpose," since with no guns there could be no gun deaths. Prior to the invention of the gun there were no gun deaths.
...but the point is we have a particular problem that needs addressing,...
Yes, we do have "a particular problem that needs addressing," and that problem is too many guns.
...and taking more guns away from the good guys strikes some of us as the least sane solution.
Taking away the guns is the most sane solution, and it is a proven solution as demonstrated by the rest of the civilized world.
The problem is not guns, it's crazed shooters.
The problem is crazy people in denial of the simple fact that more guns mean more gun deaths, and that the more lethal the gun the more gun deaths.
If you want to argue for better restrictions that really would keep guns out of the hands of the crazed ones great,...
Psychologists and psychiatrists will tell you there is no way to pre-identify who is going to murder.
I'm all for it, but we all know that isn't really possible.
Yes, precisely, pre-identifying who will murder "isn't really possible," so why did you mention it?
I'm also for better gun control in general,...
You keep saying this, but everything else you say contradicts it.
...but I think it's really slimy of the leftists who always jump on the crazed shooter cases to try to take guns away from everybody else.
I think Taq is right that you should stop turning this into a left versus right issue. This is a case of those who are sincere about solving the gun murder problem versus those who are not, and simply because they like guns.
I have no idea how to deal with a situation like the Vegas shooter.
I know how to keep mass murders like the one in Las Vegas from happening. No assault rifles. No bump stocks. No high capacity magazines. No bullets that cause massive damage.
Possibly if there had been someone in the crowd or nearby who had a rifle handy he might have been stopped before he did his worst.
Seriously?
I don't know.
That's for sure.
But making sure crowds anywhere are unarmed in this day and age is NOT the sane solution.
Making sure everyone is unarmed is the sane solution, and the sooner we start the better.
Always characterizing your opponents in such extreme terms doesn't help the discussion.
In other words you have no answer to Ringo's post showing the absurdity of your position.
I for one have never advocated arming all people or even most people.
But that's the logical endpoint of your argument. Teachers committing murder or making mistakes will require the arming of ever more teachers to take out those teachers, and on and on. Get off the crazy bus.
All it should take is a few, and preventing those few from being in a position to help by, say, gun free zones, doesn't help the situation.
Making as much of the country as possible into a gun-free zone is the answer.
Making a big deal about how to tell who the good guys are is also a red herring.
Making untenable arguments like this is the actual red herring. When everyone has a gun, telling good guys from bad guys is the biggest problem. You're in favor of creating more situations where good guys get hurt.
It certainly IS about "this day and age." We have a NEW unusual problem in this country, and it's the reason for all this talk about gun control NOW. Other countries don't have our particular problems and the comparison is unfair.
The only thing different about the U.S. is the increasingly easy availability of guns and bullets of very high lethality.
From what caffeine said, it seems Israel allows more armed people in areas where there is more known danger.
You stated you were backing away from your support of the Israel approach.
Sounds extremely reasonable to me, but our situation of lone crazed shooters doesn't need more than a very few armed people, and the solution of taking away guns from the most vulnerable areas hits me as crazier than crazy.
Name a place that isn't vulnerable to an attack by a lone gunman with an assault rifle?
And again, stop arguing this when there's been a shooting, it makes a wacko emotional issue out of something that needs the most careful reasonable thought.
If you don't think this is the time to argue this then why don't you do as you say?
The fact of the matter is that after a mass shooting is only a bad time to talk about it for those who are permanently unwilling to offer any meaningful answers.
I didn't mean to imply some formal "mental illness" by the word "crazed."
Really? Then what did you mean? You argued that we should "keep guns out of the hands of the crazed ones" (Message 69), so what is this quality of the "crazed ones" that would allow us to recognize them and keep them from getting guns?
I don't claim more armed people would always work, just that there's some chance of it helping when a totally disarmed target audience just makes for sitting ducks.
Yeah, like all those sitting duck audiences in Europe, Australia and other western style countries that get slaughtered in mass shooting after mass shooting. Oh, wait a minute, those countries don't have mass shootings, because they haven't got many guns. Gee, I guess you've made another false argument.
™ Version 4.1
(1)
