As the father of a precocious first grader I can relate somewhat to the children and parents of Newtown. My son Fallon goes to a school with no interior hallways, all exterior doorways, and literally no way to deny access to anyone with a weapon. Making this beautiful school defensible would logically begin with tearing it down. But the school design is more a nod to good weather than it is to bad defensive planning. The best such planning begins not with designing schools as fortresses or filling them with police. It doesn’t start with banning assault weapons, either, though I’m not opposed to that. The best defensive planning starts with identifying people in the community who are a threat to society and to themselves and getting them treatment. And our failure to do this I generally lay at the feet of Ronald Reagan.
I’ve written about Reagan here before. When he died in 2004 I wrote about a mildly dirty joke he told me once over dinner. It showed Reagan as everyman and explained to some extent his popularity. Also in 2004 I wrote a column that shocked many readers as it explained how Reagan’s Department of Justice built brick-by-brick the federal corrections system that it knew would do nothing but hurt America ever since, making worse both crime and poverty all in the name of punishment.
At the same time Reagan was throwing ever more people into prison he was throwing people out of mental institutions — a habit he adopted as California governor in the late 1960s. When he came into office President Reagan inherited the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, a law that passed with huge bipartisan support and was intended to improve the quality of community mental heath care. Reagan immediately killed the law by refusing to fund it, thwarting the intentions of Congress.
Reagan was offended by the entire idea of public health policy: remember Just Say No?
The Reagan administration cut funding for mental health treatment and research throughout the 1980s and it has never recovered. The Administration changed Social Security policy to disenfranchise citizens who were disabled because of mental illness, making hundreds of thousands homeless. What they called the New Federalism resulted in mental health treatment moving from the public to the private sector and becoming mainly voluntary: mentally ill people had to want to get better and then generally had to pay for their own treatment. No wonder it didn’t work.
Jump to Newtown just over a week ago where 20 year-old Adam Lanza managed to slip virtually unnoticed through the mental health system. Anyone who knew him knew he was troubled, but his family had enough money to keep him out of the system. It was assumed the family would care for him, keeping him out of trouble, too, but they didn’t.
Today, thanks to the Internet and laws supporting victims’ rights, I can find where convicted sex offenders live in my neighborhood, but I can’t find my local Adam Lanza. And maybe that’s okay and my Adam deserves some privacy. But not only can’t I find him, neither can the local police, local medical officials, or even the FBI. We don’t keep track of these likely threats to our communities when it would be so easy to do so. It doesn’t even require Big Data, just plain old little data that’s been sitting all along with educators, health care professionals, gun sellers and pharmacists.
That’s what we should do in response to Newtown but instead we’ll now have a big argument about banning guns or putting police in schools. Probably very little will be done to simply identify and treat the hostiles within our society.
We didn’t do it when the wacko was named John Hinckley Jr. and the victim was Ronnie Reagan, himself, and we probably won’t do it now.
Let’s start with that.
Hi,
are you sure you have the right cause and effect—probably yes, but my impression was that the death of the mental institutions, and especially the resulting homeless, was the ACLU suing with the point that people who weren’t convicted couldn’t be ‘jailed’, jails being what mental institutions of the 50-70’s largely were. Related to that was a thought like ‘pissing in the street’ or living under a bridge (not really a crime) shouldn’t result in indefinite warehousing.
If you have time, I would appreciate a brief note to my email telling me if I am wrong. I have thought that way for a long time, and certainly will change if… Incidentally, I don’t mean to contradict what you say about Reagan. I don’t really know about that.
Thanks
Scott, hope you’ll accept the reply of another ‘Bob’ in the meantime. I think that you are *both* right – but most think ignoring assualt weapons and extended round clips is also ignoring a large part of the problem as well… until you look a the data and see that most mass shootings in the US involved semi auto handguns, not assault weapons. Either way you or Bob frame it, the issue is still largely about mental health. If you look at those countries with the lowest incidents of mass shootings (or even mass violence in general), they also appear to be those countries with nationalized health care. (They are lower, not non existent as shown by shootings in Finland and France).
If we could get over the idea that everything we do in this country has to generate a profit at the expense of everything else, perhaps we can find a level of government and private sector cooperation that addresses both of your points.
Kudos to you for pointing out that, in fact, very few people are killed with rifles every year– a few hundred, in fact. Rifles are for killing at a distance, and aren’t particularly useful for criminals as they are unwieldy in close quarters and impossible to conceal.
Something that gets overlooked: CT is one of the few states that actually has an “Assault Rifle Ban” in place. According to CT law, the rifle that Lanza used was NOT an assault rifle, as it did not have the requisite number of “scary cosmetic features” to qualify it as an assault rifle.
I wonder how many of Cringely’s readers know how to define an “Assault Rifle”? I have literally never met a non-gun owner that could even get close to the legal definition of one per CT law, or per the expired federal law (which was in fact based on the CT law which preceded it.)
BTW, it’s a MAGAZINE, not a CLIP. Yes, there’s a difference.
“Kudos to you for pointing out that, in fact, very few people are killed with rifles every year– a few hundred, in fact”
As a European looking at the state of guns in America, this is the sort of off-hand comment that suggests where the real problem is. A few hundred!?! That’s a lot of dead people! I know the usual arguments, big country, 2nd amendment, need to hunt, cars kill more, etc etc, but that’s a lot of dead people who in many cases need not be dead.
The idea that somehow the solution is to find all the crazy people and just lock them up seems … well crazy. That sounds like Minority Report.
Hi Chris,
A few hundred people in a country of over 300 million really isn’t that many. Let’s take a look at Belgium. In Belgium there were 300 deaths due to long guns in 2005. On a per-capita basis, considering that the US has 30x more people than belgium, that would imply the equivalent of 9,000 long gun deaths in the USA.
Now, “long guns” includes both rifles and shotguns, and I could not readily find statistics for shotgun deaths in the US. But I’m pretty sure there werent 8700 shotgun deaths in the US last year. So that implies that Belgium, for all its gun control laws and “civilized European values” had more long gun violence than the US.
But as a European,
Well said. Here in the UK, handguns are completely banned, as are automatic weapons. Firearms licence applications are heavily vetted and scrutinised and include a visit by police to inspect your home. Gun-related homicides in the US run at around 9500 per year, here it’s around 50. The NRA say they want armed guards on every elementary school gate. So much for the Land of The Free.
“I wonder how many of Cringely’s readers know how to define an ‘Assault Rifle’?” Being good at “naming of parts” when it comes to guns is part of the hideous sickness too many of you americans have. People should be proud to be ignorant of such things. If such “expertise” is needed for defining laws it should only be possible to find it in prisons. Of course people guilty of gun crime should all be imprisoned together, with their guns, so that evolution can take its course.
I don’t care what you call it. If it has 30 rounds in it, NOBODY needs one.
Nobody needs one? So no doubt you support taking them away from the police, the military, and of course, the secret service. Especially the latter – leaders should lead, right? If they want to disarm the people they should disarm their protectors FIRST.
This is not about guns or Ronald Reagan ( best president of the 20th and 21st century thus far ) ……..
…….this is about the press and how they give fame to the nutjob shooters.
So if you want to talk to me about gun control I want to talk to you about press control.
Who needs a stinkin constitution anyway.
So, you posit that if you don’t talk about something that it goes away? How did that work out for abstinence only education programs and teen pregnancy rates?
When I read what you NJF liberals write I am always struck by what you are missing.
Charles Hugh Smith is part of what you need to read. Excerpt below:
The net result of the Savior State dominating society and the economy is the rise of a pathological mindset of entitlement and resentment–the two are simply two sides of the same coin. You cannot separate them.
You can see the full entry here: https://www.oftwominds.com/blogdec12/Xmas-hope12-12.html
The next sentence is also worth noting: “Once self-reliance has been lost, so too has self-confidence been lost, and the Savior State dependent–individual and corporation alike–soon distrusts their ability to function in an open market.”
Spoken like someone who wants to be a Savior
Only if you define “savior” as someone who preaches “their is no free lunch”.
Ron: Most people are not totally self reliant unless they are Amish. Your picture looks like you’re a very old man and I would assume you proudly like Ron Paul take a social security check. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if we go back to the Hoover great days of non-government intervention you end up creating Okies, a starving populace and a crappy future. Furthermore, even Ayn Rand cashed in on Social Security and Medicare so that being a pioneer chopping down wood and building your own log cabin is now mainly a myth.
I think a background check on guns purchases is a sound policy that even Reagan out of office supported especially when a crazy person shot him.
@Buckaroo. Lots of problems in your reasoning. That 300 number from Belgium is all deaths due to all types of guns, not just long guns and not only Newton-like shootings. Further more, you first say ‘a few hundredth’ and then can’t come up with an actual figure. Then you say you think it’s lower than 8700, without any factual base. Then conclude Belgium has a worse track record in gun deaths compared to the US. And you didn’t even categorize the shootings, for example to exclude suicides.
Hint: gun homicides alone in 2005 in the US already accounted for 10,158 deaths. And that’s just homicides. Add 32.000 for suicides.
I’m glad to hear you talk about the wave of deinstitutionalization Reagan presided over—but you fail to dig deeply into why. I think it goes beyond federalism, and is instead rooted in the prevailing American myth of self-reliance (and it’s 20th century codification and rejection of all things “Socialist”). I’ve been living in Germany for almost 20 years, and although no system is perfect, when it comes to aiding those who are most vulnerable, it is perhaps better to have “tried and failed” than simply to have abandoned them to the street. In many ways, America seems to have stopped trying long ago.
Screw Germany. In case you don’t have a clue their demographics is such that there will not be a Germany as we know it in 40 years. It will be an Islamic state.
……and you know what they say: “Off with their heads”
So when you bleeding heart libturds try to coerce YET MORE tax money out of me the answer = HELL NO.
I do, in fact have a clue. Your ad hominem vitriol is a wonderful confirmation that there is no rational argument to be made. Thanks for confirming my thesis.
While Newtown was a tragedy, there are far worse ones going on. Put in context it is an anomaly that affected a tiny number of children compared to the other things are killing them or significantly affecting quality of life. How about seatbelts and road accidents? What about domestic violence and bullying? What about poor neighbourhoods (Dina Rasor’s article) and gang violence? What about the slow but steady killer of lack of access to good food and good exercise?
Considering that automobiles have killed over 30,000 people every year since 1946 (!!!), we should have banned them decades ago…right?
When the potential risk of misuse (harm) of an item outweighs the potential benefit, then it the general public should not be allowed to have it. This is not a new idea. I am not allowed to possess certain types of explosives, chemicals, radioactive materials, etc. Why shouldn’t this rule also apply to certain types of firearms?
In this context, the factious automobile deaths analogy is not only ridiculous, but also a distraction.
Gary Kleck, a Professor at Florida State University, did studies on the defensive use of handguns and concluded that between 1988 and 1993, handguns were used to prevent 2.5 million crimes during that time span. Criminals have a very interesting tendency: if the victim shows that they are resisting with credible force, they tend to abandon the crime in progress with rather extreme haste.
I’d say that’s a rather convincing benefit, wouldn’t you?
The Kleck study is highly flawed – see http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck
Exactly… we can do without automobiles.
Banning guns would impact the ability for our families to put food on the table – we’d all starve!
Cars also do something useful. Guns don’t. Guns are just toys for a society that has not grownup.
Yah but what would you expect out of a moron with the name “Capitalism Sucks”
You just want to disarm the resistors of communism and all forms mind control.
“Guns are just toys for a society that has not grown up.”
Best line I’ve read in a very long time. Thank you for this.
Of course! and the press is more responsible than guns for the massacre. Ban the press!
The 30,000 annual death toll from cars should be a national disgrace. Here in the UK, the road deaths peaked at 7,985 in 1966 and have fallen steadily since then to 1901 in 2011. Adjusting for population sizes, the US road toll should be 9,500, so exactly why is the actual figure 300% larger?
I come from a strong hunting culture: New Zealand, where there’s an absolute, and widely supported, prohibition on automatic weapons and on those with barrels less than 18 inches long. Now, remind me: what’s the unique feature of American life that says that hunters need unlimited access to pistols and automatic weapons?
Put these two points together, and it seems to me that the main problem in the US is that nobody gives a toss about death, provided its somebody else that’s being killed.
“Now, remind me: what’s the unique feature of American life that says that hunters need unlimited access to pistols and automatic weapons?”
***
First off, civilians in the US are not allowed to buy/sell automatic weapons and have not been able to since the 30’s…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
Secondly, the “unique feature” of American life is we actually have a Constitution with an Amendment (2nd) that enshrines the right of the people to bear arms, a right the government cannot simply take away on a whim. In the UK, Parliament can with the stroke of a pen take away any and all of your rights since the UK does not have a written constitution with guarantees of rights for the people. That is why it was so easy to take away the guns in the UK. You had no “right” to them in the first place. Owning weapons in the USA is not only about protecting yourself and your family. It is also about protecting the people against the tyranny of their government should that arise. If the British Empire had enacted gun control, there would have been no American Revolution, would there?
Sorry, Roger, but I grow weary of these arguments. They imply that we can only worry about specific problems, and if the problem isn’t on your list, it’s not worthy.
We are, as a species, capable of not liking multiple bad things at one time. This is ok. And it’s ok if some people focus on some of the problems, and other people focus on others of them.
Is this complicated for you to get?
You completely missed my point which is that effort and spending should be relative to the level of risk and consequences. Things affecting far larger numbers of kids are virtually ignored.
Like alcohol.
“Like alcohol”
There’s an inconvenient truth indeed!
I am not American. Looking from the outside in, it is very clear that the only people trying to steer this discussion away from gun reform are Americans. My understanding is that the guns used in this atrocity were legally owned by Lanza’s mother, who seemed to have been a fairly normal American woman, worried about her son’s mental health. The question you guys should be asking yourselves is what kind of society considers it normal for such a woman to own not just one but four guns. The problem does not lie with the way you deal with mental health issues – we in Europe deal with mental health no better than you do – the problem lies with your acceptance of lethal weapons into everyday culture.
So your argument is, I don’t understand why anyone would own four guns, therefore, no one should be allowed to own guns?
This country freed itself from a tyrant by using guns, and has used them successfully since then to keep itself free. How many kitchen knives do you own? By your logic, you shouldnt need more than one, right? After all, you can only use one at a time, and they are deadly weapons that people use to commit crimes with every day. You should be forced to pick one, and get rid of the rest. Right?
A gun is a tool, and like any tool, they come in different shapes and sizes for different jobs. If you knew the first thing about guns, you’d understand that.
…he just meant , I think properly , the great clue could be her four guns , she liked to practice shooting them , but wasn’t really a hunter . And , there aren’t British soldiers knocking on doors asking for tax money , ..,but she had four guns. Not one. You’re right that knives are weapons , and hands too . When you drive thru Texas , the sounds you hear in the distance are the texans practicing shooting at targets in the shape of people , ya know. It’s that vibe . British police only carry night sticks , Israeli citizens don’t house guns , and their nation is surrounded by folks sneering at them.
Actually, his question was why did this women own four guns, and not why she owned any guns. Don’t steer the conversation.
When I was growing up in Texas, a lot of people had guns. They had shotguns and hunting rifles. I knew only one person with a handgun. He was a courier of some sort and needed the protection. No one had assault rifles , No one had automatic weapons.
I also knew a few people who lived way out in the country and had guns for household protection. They were isolated. An emergency call to the sheriff’s department may take an hour for a response. They had shotguns. A shotgun doesn’t have to be aimed too carefully, and the shot isn’t likely to penetrate walls and hit someone in the next room. As a bonus, if an intruder hears the click-clack of a shot gun getting cocked, they are more then likely to leave which I suspect was what my friends were really hoping for.
So, why does this lady in suburban Connecticut, in a fairly safe town, where there’s good police protection own four guns that can hold 30 bullets in a clip and spew out up to 360 bullets per minute?
Over the last few decades, the NRA and the gun manufacturers have sold a paranoid fantasy. Bad guys are everywhere. They want to violate your women. They want to seize your property. They want to kill you. There are millions of them out there. Or, maybe it’s the government which is out to take away your freedoms. They’re in league with the U.N.
However, you can own a gun and be a hero and mow down the bad guys just like Charles Bronson! In fact, you need more than one! All you need are weapons who’s sole design was to kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. And, these guns should be loaded and scattered around the house like peanuts too! You never know when that renegade band of bad guys will attack! It could be while you’re watching TV, or when you’re showering!
We need an intelligent conversation about guns in this country, but we can’t. And, that’s the true shame.
Why did she own four guns? I already answered that question: guns are tools, and like any tool,they come in many different varieties. How many tools do you own?
Again, if you knew the first thing about guns, you’d understand why she owned four different guns. I don’t mind “having a conversation about guns”, my problem is that the people who want o take my guns away literally don’t know the first thing about them. It’s tough to have a “conversation” when one side is entirely ignorant about the actual subject matter at hand.
The ‘not knowing about guns’ argument is a bit weird. “Hey, don’t comment about guns because you don’t know the difference between a rifle and a semi-automatic!” Umm, we kinda know the basics – for example, that they cause thousands of deaths in the US each year, while not having any use other than to harm.
We know cars kill, but have important uses – and we try to take measures to limit the harm they do.
As a non-American, my interest is really limited to not wanting to be shot while I’m visiting, but it’s hard not to wonder what’s going on in the collective head of the US when you guys cling to your guns like you do. The slavish dedication to the constitution and amendments is a little strange too.
On the plus side, it does make US films more exciting, as it’s ok for everyone to run around with guns. Doesn’t look right when we do that in (most) European films. So I guess we all benefit, in a way.
so, what did she build with her tools?
I think the NRA would be scared of increased care for the mentally handicapped… they’d lose half their members.
My grandfather and father own rifles – we use them for protection when we go fishing in the wilderness. Yes, we use them for target shooting as well but the only reason we own them is for protection in the woods. Back in the city they are safely put away and we have no reason to think we might need them for protection. I’m guessing this woman had no need for her guns except for the fears built up in her mind.
I do feel bad for those who live in dangerous areas where they genuinely feel they need a gun for protection. My fear is that this will become the norm rather than the exception. It’s an area I want to live in.
Guns are supernatural weapons and should be treated as such.
Not everyone should own a gun.
Not everyone should drive a car either- at least most states require significantly more training/testing for a drivers license than a gun permit.
Taking the argument that guns don’t kill people—people kill people therefore guns should not be regulated to its logical conclusion I would really like an RPG (can’t afford a stinger missile)- I promise to use it responsibly and only for self defense, hunting Bison on Ted Turner’s private reserve and socially acceptable recreational purposes such as blowing up sand dunes in the Mojave Desert.
Don’t know whole story but sounds like something was not quite right with Adam’s mom. Owning multiple pistols and not appropriately storing them in a no crime area with a troubled child is a big red flag.
Yes, mental health access is abysmal in most states unless one is literally certifiable (frankly psychotic AND a danger to self/others). Access to services (outpatient and well as inpatient) has spiraled horribly downward since early in Reagan’s second term. Many reasons for this including political, ideologic and financial; the mentally ill were an easy target to beat up on and score political points.
Most people with personality disorders (antisocial, narcissistic, borderline), anger issues, impulse control disorders or that are just a bit “off” to not come to the attention of law enforcement or mental health. Such persons are representative of the majority of shooters, not the certified schizophrenic channeling demons from the neighbor’s dog. They are typically “mad as hell” about something or someone for along time and plan on doing something about it. Personality disorders are not as easy to diagnose as one might think. Patients and family often in denial and make rationalizations why little “Johnny” is so weird. Maybe he is just so smart that everyone else is jealous, maybe he is just misunderstood, maybe the other kid (or family pet) deserved what Johnny did to him.
Guns and mental health are two issues that need to be addressed; however, we do not have to improve treatment for the mentally ill to prevent gun carnage- just don’t let them easily get guns.
Gun rules need to change.
Maybe a gun permit applicant should have tougher background check, pay liability insurance and be required get references from several people who know them. This stopped a normally rational person I know in NY from purchasing a gun during a nasty divorce- no one who knew him would give a reference at the time.
JMT
You got it exactly when you said:
“So, why does this lady in suburban Connecticut, in a fairly safe town, where there’s good police protection own four guns that can hold 30 bullets in a clip and spew out up to 360 bullets per minute?”
Your problem is that you’ve created a society that considers this normal. Your usual defence is to quote the second ammendment, but that was written as a response to a very particular situation at a very particular time. Furthermore, you do already limit its scope – at least I presume that the ordinary citizen does not have the right to own nuclear or chemical weapons, or to drive a fully-operational tank down a highstreet.
The second amendment equally applies today.
If the USA becomes such that the people need to protect themselves from the government for ANY reason then it is the second amendment that gives them that ability for any armaments they may have.
I’ve noted elsewhere that we allow certain armaments to be controlled only by governments because their effects are too devestating to trust to individuals – and even some governments – (e.g. nuclear weapons); that’s valid namely due to that it would be hard for the government to use nuclear weapons on itself so its not much of a concession by the people as it is better used for defense against outside invaders.
Remember too that the Founding Fathers all committed treason (a high crime) against England; so anything limiting the availablity of armaments only to citizens in good standing was well understood to be useless – a government that citizens needed to protect themselves against can easily fabricate charges to disarm those same citizens in order to prevent the will of the people from establishing a new government – as the Founding Fathers did.
Now the framework they laid out for their governments (or rather the second framework they laid out) has done us very well for 200+ years (1791-present, the first version lasted from 1778 to 1791 because it did not give enough power to the Federal government). The events of the last 50 years may give a hint to whether it will be around in another 150 or so as it has started to become more and more like the government the Founding Fathers sought to free us from.
So just because we may not think the state of the government of today does not require us to be able to defend ourselves against it, does not mean that the government of tomorrow won’t – especially since a citizenry fails to see what rights the government takes from them will eventually find that they need to protect themselves from that same government.
“So, why does this lady in suburban Connecticut, in a fairly safe town, where there’s good police protection own four guns that can hold 30 bullets in a clip”
***
So much is made of this. So limit magazines to 10 rounds. It takes all of about 2 seconds to replace one magazine with another. Literally. People who do not know guns think this is a panacea. It’s not.
“and spew out up to 360 bullets per minute?”
***
Sigh. The rifle in question was SEMI-AUTOMATIC. One pull of the trigger means one round fired, like a pistol or revolver. Your number of 360 rounds per minute would mean someone would have to pull the trigger 6 times a second… Not happing.
Knives are very personal. Very few people can kill other people with a knife. A gun makes it much more impersonal aka easy.
It was a declared state of war. They were issuing guns when you enrolled. It’s not like the war was won by ordinary citizens spontaneously using the guns they had around the house.
I’m not that familiar with US history but I don’t quite recall any case like that. When has the fact that average Joe has a gun in his house significantly helped to preserve US freedom? Did you guys stave off any invasion? Did you overthrow a corrupt government? Did you claim some human right by force? Did you prevent 9/11? Did you at least prevent one of these public shootings?
You are very ignorant of American history.
The shot heard round the world was most likely from a citizens musket.
George Washingtons most effective weapon was the rifle, rifles owned by individual who joined the army.
There are several more cases of citizens standing up to Federal overreach or for rights. Whiskey rebellion and Harpers Ferry come to mind.
Here are some recent examples of gun owners stopping events like Newton
— Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
— Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
— Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
— Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
— Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
— Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures — Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
Russ.
“Washingtons most effective weapon was a rifle”.
Of which 100,000 were supplied by France. Along with a Navy, regular army troops, and heavy artillery.
The whole argument about the people owning guns to protect themselves from an overpowering federal government would make a lot more sense if the Confederacy had won the Civil War and the state militias hadn’t been federalized into the National Guard. The argument is probably historically correct and may reflect the original intention of the constitution, but has been destroyed in practice by the conflation of States’ Rights and slavery that occurred in the first half of the 19th century, and the fact that the confederacy lost. If states’ rights and strong state militias had been asserted in a cause that wasn’t so abhorrent to the rest of the country, those rights might have survived. But in order to win the Civil War, Lincoln had to create a strong federal army, and thereby created a situation where even an armed citizenry has little or no chance against the federal government.
The only way the citizenry is going to violently overthrow the Federal government is if the National Guard units take the side of the rebels. And those guys already have the right to have automatic weapons, tanks, aircraft and various other useful pieces of equipment.
While we’re (not) waiting for the National Guard to overthrow the government, the individual right of gun ownership is meaningless in the context of our relationship to the federal government. Apart from the kind of idiotic hostage stand-offs and mass murders that we put up with in the name of freedom, any guns anybody can reasonably acquire are useless going against the government.
Try the castle doctrine and self-defence arguments. Those at least have some basis in daily life and in some state laws.
Repeat after me: “‘Red Dawn’ is not a documentary!” You can’t rationally support the argument against gun control with the claim that potential tyrants are scared off by the enormous number of guns available to our freedom loving populace.
Mr. Nicholson misses the most basic point here… If that woman was so “worried about her son’s mental health”, then explain to me in logic that does not originate in the gun cult why she owned weapons capable of mowing down a crowd of people in the first place? For scaring away raccoons? For killing ants? For impressing her boy friends?
This country’s biggest problem is that it makes big talk about “rights”, “freedom” and “liberty” – but has no value for the actual “life” required to exercise those particular entitlements, nor does it exercise common sense over the pursuit of “want”. One needs look no further than the remark “Buckaroo Bonzaai” posited earlier in this thread, “A few hundred people in a country of over 300 million really isn’t that many.”, referring to deaths caused by assault rifles. Call me what you will, but ONE person killed with a weapon manufactured with no other purpose than to inflict massive death is one too many in a civilized society.
So what you are saying is never mind that stupid constitution thingy!
…….liberals == morons every time
Call me what you will, but ONE person killed with a weapon manufactured with no other purpose than to inflict massive death is one too many in a civilized society.
You can kill a person with your car keys, a tree branch, a piece of ice. Nearly anything can be made into a weapon – even your own body. Yes, certain weapons require more effort to kill more than one person; but it is still (in most cases) doable.
So you are approaching the question from the wrong direction.
Now, we don’t know what kinds of protections she took to try to keep her son from getting ahold of those weapons – whether she had them in a locked gun safe, stored off-site, etc. There’s so many unknowns as to say what the problem was – especially since neither your nor anyone else here are involved in the investigation (and if you are you shouldn’t be commenting here to start with).
But looking at the bigger picture – the 300/year quote says nothing about the author. It says its a statistical drop in the bucket as it does not qualify how people were killed/injured with the weapons – e.g. accidental, self-inflicted, etc. I do agree that each and every life is equally important and should be protected; but the buck does not stop there.
Weapons have many uses – sport (hunting, competition), protection (self, others, etc) that there are many reasons why people would have them. As with any weapon they need to be properly stored and cared for, and access should only be given to those the owner knows they can trust with them. But as with all things, security fails due to even the weakest link (e.g. she could have had a well known (to the family) date as the safe combination).
Yes, the event is sad. Gun control won’t resolve it from happening again. Neither will doing as Bob says and locking up all the mentally ill – define mentally ill; as some have noted the vast majority of the earth would qualify as mentally ill to some degree or another, so are we just going to put everyone into a psychiatric ward? Even that has its problems (read the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy for a good example of when psychiatric wards are abused to detain people that shouldn’t be there).
This problem is not solved by government; but by the community being involved with each and every citizen in some form – even if its just “well, we all know we need to keep an eye on that guy”. Sadly, in the last 50 years the community has largely shrinked away so that people are more isolated than ever from what is going on around them.
Let me explain it to you in Cringley terms:
Americans have the right to own guns not for self defense only, they have them to ensure our government cannot treat us like IBM employes.
I waited 18 years to meet a homeless person. Then I moved to Berkeley. And met a lot of them, in and around the Bay Area. The prevailing wisdom was that much of the population was the result of then Governor Reagan encouraging the closure of mental health facilities throughout California. I also witnessed the difficulties a dear friend had arranging help for her adult son diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was finally jailed for several years after building and delivering an explosive device his “voices” told him he needed to get revenge after a woman jilted him.
The idea that encouraging significant investment in a mental health treatment infrastructure to prevent criminal behavior (and help the afflicted as an afterthought) probably seems to many people a way for too many “real” criminals to beat the system. We’re still many tragedies away from real change.
Yeah all those homeless people in California are not there due to the generous welfare package they give.
Get a clue libturds
90% of homeless people don’t participate in the “generous welfare package” because they have no known address. Use your brain, moron.
You can tell the people who aren’t Bob’s usual commenters, because they are the ones who can’t seem to string a few sentences together without slinging insults around. They do more to damage their side of the argument by their behavior than they probably know.
One thing is certain: I wouldn’t want ANY of those commenters to stand guard over ANY school. If they don’t have the sense to not shout insults in a forum, they sure won’t be able to handle a psychology at play in a school filled with Tweens and Teens.
Hello “Sandy”,
I’m not sure what your point was. Do you live near a large homeless population? If California benefits were so good one would not need to be homeless. Most California weather is not really hospitable to year round outdoor living. (Its in the 20’s-30’s at night where I work).
One will not freeze to death near the beaches but most localities enforce beach night curfew.
I think Freeman was agreeing with this part of the original post: “probably seems to many people a way for too many “real” criminals to beat the system”. (A point that well-meaning liberal thinkers either overlook or are willing to accept the level of abuse that is bound to happen at the expense of taxpayers.)
Well, we can correlate Muslims to terrorist incidents. Should we have a Muslim database also? How about a black database for those in urban areas — again, because of a correlation?
Mental illness is something that (depending on the particular diagnosis) may very well restrict or else prevent you from doing many things in society, from driving a bus to operating certain machinery including firearms. Imposing such restrictions is otherwise agnostic to race, creed or color.
The purchaser of a firearm is required to complete ATF form 4473 which involves questions regarding any criminal history as well as your (past) mental condition (“… have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”).
If one should be in a mental institution or else be receiving psychiatric treatment but society is unable to provide this then it makes it easier for someone who arguably shouldn’t be handling a firearm to obtain one.
Whether someone’s psychiatric history should be a matter of public record is another issue.
I know fewer Americans are affected than car accidents and the like, but the damage abroad is far worse. What about the insane wars America is waging? And the effect domestically is smaller, but not nonexistent either. What about all the soldiers who come back mere (mental) shells of their previous selves, and who in large numbers are employed by local police nationwide? I’d be far more worried about these seriously damaged individuals than a few lone nuts like Lanza.
Only a complete police state could actually accomplish what you advocate Bob. How do you even define mental illness, especially of the extreme capable of mass-murder? Genuine schizophrenia and the like is quite rare. Yet there are government studies that insist that fully 20% of the citizenry are mentally ill. My wife is the type who insists EVERYONE is (but thankfully is not in any position of power to do anything about it (:-)).
And regarding that police state, considering the sheer numbers of ex-military types, often damaged, that end up in police forces at every level of government, you’d literally have the inmates enforcing the laws of the asylum. Don’t forget that these disturbed individuals that end up perpetrating these deeds are universally prescribed very strong drugs known to have serious side effects. How much does this aggravate an existing mild illness to a full-blown suicidal mass-murdering rampage? I doubt the pharmaceutical companies, or the government bodies that regulate them, care all too much about this question, or many others the pharma-medico-governmental complex (which you seem to admire and praise, by indirectly encouraging more of it) raises.
Regarding the money issue, you first say that few people have the means to avail themselves of private care, and later you claim that money allows one to escape such care altogether. The truth is, you don’t know what happened other than what the government tells you. The father can’t be considered a reliable source of information. His son is now a mass murderer. Further, it has been reported (which can be suspect as well, as I said above, but…) that he last saw his son two years ago? Or has the number changed? The perpetrator and his mother are both gone. We don’t really know much at all, other than what the media releases, which is not much.
What is missing also from this conversation, is the analysis that the only reason why more people aren’t killed by guns is because the US ER departments have gotten very good at treating gunshot wounds. When you look at the statistics more carefully, you’ll see that there is over 100,000 incidents of gun violence per year. And most of them are either innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire (or by playing with guns), or relatives and family of the gun person.
So if you look at the Belgium statistics mentioned earlier you’ll see that that actually their rate is significantly lower than the US rate (just like the rate in Europe as a whole, which has a much larger population than the US, is also significantly less too).
Its either that the US is awash in guns, which are used to kill people, or the US is an extremely violent society. I think the first answer is more accurate, the place has too many guns. That handgun study by the way, was thrown out years ago for having too much inaccurate data in it. And why don’t we have any new impartial papers to replace it? Because the NRA ‘helped’ Congress defund the CDC if they even sniffed at doing any research on the effects of guns on society.
And for all you fans of the 2nd amendment, it wasn’t guaranteeing a right for an individual to bear guns, it was guaranteeing that the states would organize a militia (i.e. an army) because the federal government didn’t have one. If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be horrified how their bill of rights had been corrupted and manipulated to promote guns. Just check out the words on the Thomas Jefferson’s memorial in DC to see what I mean (he basically says that the bill of rights and the constitution are a starting point, and that they should be adjusted to meet the society needs of the day, not be a static rigid document as the current Supreme Crt thinks it should be)
First, I thought the US had a terrible medical system compared to the utopian single payer european model.
Second, you have no idea what the 2nd amendment meant if you think it applied to the states. The second amendment is part of the bill of rights (think individuals).
I think the Founders would be far more horrified at what has happened to the concept of states rights and decenteralized power as was explictly reaffirmed by the (currently ignored) 10th amendment.
If you guys want to ‘adjust’ the constitution, there is a provision for doing so, which is also now also ignored. Amending the constitution is a very high bar on purpose, because it requires overwhelming consent of the governed to take away more of our God given rights.
I don’t see why the 10th amendment is being ignored. It provides that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. Perhaps you mean that the people have been duped into voting to transfer more power to the Federal government. Sometimes it’s not clear which oganization is approprate. Clearly, defending the country from foreign invaders is within the province of the Ferderal government, as well as the lighting of the National tree.
What David said about schizophrenia is true. I also have a friend who has a schizophrenic child. The sufferer hearing voices seems (to me) to be the sin qua non of definitive mental illness. But the label is so subjective that even such a strict standard would be (heavily) loosened before long.
Keep in mind how many governments have abused psychiatry to nefarious ends. The label of mental illness will end up being used as a weapon. Not so different from the way various laws are today against individuals that the government decides to focus on. And if you disagree, what’s your argument? That it “can’t happen here?” Right…
So you’re saying the U.S. is defined by what it’s afraid of becoming instead of what it wants to be?
I might just agree.
Here’s an interesting (and comforting) assessment of how we used to take care of the mentally ill by Oliver Sacks who knows something about the condition. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/sep/24/the-lost-virtues-of-the-asylum/
Here we go again. Another massacre in the USA followed by the usual hand wringing and big worldly statements. But of course nothing changes in America’s worship of the gun. At least this time it wasn’t people from other countries who had to be the casualties so America can remain “The Land of the Free”.
Well, when you consider that, if it weren’t for guns, our country literally wouldn’t exist, why should it be any different? That “long train of abuses” that Jefferson so carefully enumerated, would have continued chugging along, and you’d have a picture of the queen on your money.
It’s funny how few Americans seem to remember that the Revolution started precisely because the Redcoats were sent out into the Massachusetts countryside that day to seize powder and shot from the Colonists. The first job of any tyrant is to disarm the populace. It’s what Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao did before they slaughtered an aggregate of 50 million of their own countrymen.
BB, are you somehow related to LaPierre as your NRA rhetoric is remarkably similar? In the various replies in this thread you have used the same distorted facts that have been discredited. Like the tobacco lobby, the NRA is simply supporting its industry and will point the barrel at whomever questions the 2nd amendment, in effect trumping the 1st amendment. The sad thing is you are not alone and AR-15 sales are booming. Guns didn’t protect Reagan or Kennedy. Heck, why not just arm the kids?
I’ve used the “same distorted facts that have been discredited”? Which facts are those, precisely? Frankly I’m not a big fan of LaPierre as he’s done a crappy job of standing up for gun owners rights, but credit where credit is due, he has stepped up lately. I’m more of a fan of Larry Pratt at GOA who has been the real deal for quite some time. “Guns didn’t protect Reagan or Kennedy.” What does that have to do with anything, except indict the Secret Service for what a crappy job they did on those two occasions? Recent events have disclosed that the Secret Service seems to be more interested in banging prostitutes and getting into bar fights, than actually doing its job.
Finally, if you are stupid enough to believe the NRA actually amounts to anything, then you are certainly too stupid to notice “the dog that didn’t bark.” Smart people who pay attention to the world know that over the last 15 years, people in general, and children in particular, have been medicated extensively with psychotropic drugs, many of which have published side effects that include paranoia, violence, and suicidal impulses. Oddly, our Dear Leader doesn’t seem interested in starting a “national conversation” on this topic, as it conflicts with he interests of his paymasters. The amount of money being made in Prozac alone probably exceeds the profits of the entire firearms industry. But that wouldn’t have anything to do with anything, would it?
Start with the lie that guns have saved millions of lives in the US and end with the fact that guns are far more likey to result in the death of a family member or suicide than someone the owner doesn’t know. Blame drugs, blame doctors, blame the government, blame society but never ever think about the possibility that the reason the US suffers far more gun deaths per capita than any other developed country is due to the fact that, essentially, access to guns is considered sacrosanct.
What strikes me about liberals is your worship of emotion over reason. Your inability to think clearly leads to all sorts of terrible results. But morons in the press like Bob Cringely reinforce your points of view so all is well.
I’m coming for your freedom of the press if you come for my guns. You don’t get to play god here and decide what is right and what is wrong. What is good for you is good for me. You take away my 2nd I take away your 1st.
You were doing fine, until the end. The reason the police, FBI, etc don’t track those with mental illness, even serious, untreated mental illness, is that these people are no more likely to commit violent crime than anyone else. Convicted sex offenders are much more likely to strike again. Stigmatizing those with mental illness is just wrong. Most of the people who were shot and killed on December 14, 2012, did not live in Newtown, Conn, and were not shot by someone who was mentally ill.
We have too many guns in this country, it’s too easy for anyone to get a gun. Period. Every other issue (video games, movies, media, etc) raised by the gun lobby exists in every other advanced country in the world.
And still, no gun can kill without a person pulling the trigger.
You miss three important points: First, a bomb can kill more people; second, if the mother had properly locked her guns he wouldn’t have had access to them; and finally, are we really going to have the discussion about how many dead children are acceptable?
If Lanza had only beaten one child to death that day, would anyone care? Probably not. Would that child’s parents take solace in all the other living children in his class? Probably not.
We need to stop reacting to tragedies by trying to mitigate symptoms.
In fact, the worst school massacre in history (Bath, ME), was perpetrated with explosives, not guns. A madman in China killed dozens of school kids with a knife recently. Banning weapons doesn’t really solve the problem.
Nobody was killed in the Chinese attacks: China school knife attack in Henan injures 22 children.
I stand corrected. However, at “up close and personal” distances, a knife is just as deadly as a gun. Note the circumstances of that particular attack were much different: the Chinese man initiated his attack outside at the school gate. Had he cornered the kids inside a schoolroom (as happened in Newtown) those kids would all be dead.
China has had a rash of these school knifings in the last few years.
The rule for most is, “don’t let the facts get in your way”; which works well for the mind made-up and closed.
Too logical for this crew MAtt
What I find interesting is that in ancient Rome a child between 12 and 14 would get some sort of position that they could hold and in effect were made part of society as an active contributor. What is more interesting is that they did not have any juvenile delinquency.
If you look back, or look at a young person, they are quite able at that age. Now we have labor laws that forbid the same young person from holding a position. You apprenticed under someone. Today you are not allowed to partake in society even though you are quite able to. What’s a person to do who is not allowed to be part of the group? They create their own group with their own ideas, which often becomes a nuisance or menace to themselves and others.
To top it off, we have psychotropic drugs being handed out as some sort of solution to this inhibition placed on young people. And normal symptoms from restlessness and desire to create and produce is now considered a mental disease and treated with psychotropic drugs that carry black label warnings because it makes people suicidal.
The same drugs that are found in more than a dozen of the school shooters.
Thank you for mentioning psychotropic drugs. Talk to any elementary schoolteacher, and they’ll tell you a big part of their job is dispensing medications. Big Pharma gets rich, and yet our kids don’t seem to get better, only worse. Why isn’t the President calling for a “national conversation” on the effects of medicating our youth? Hmmmm. It’s almost like he’s got some other agenda. Or something.
@BB – you mean the school nurse. The teachers are not typically allowed to dispense medication.
I’m also not an American, but a European that spent a year at a US high school and therefore know all to well, that talking about weapons is the last thing you want to hear, specially from foreigners. So you talk about mental institutions, computer games or better protection of school buildings. But when you see figures like the one on https://www.classwarfareexists.com/the-u-s-accounts-for-87-of-child-gun-deaths-in-the-23-richest-countries/ (“Among 23 high-income countries in the world scholars have studied, the United States is home to 80 percent of all gun deaths, and 87 percent of all gun deaths of children younger than 15.”) you just can’t bury your head in the sand ignoring the cruel fact that the US are so much more deadly not because there are fewer mental institutions or the school are under-protected compared to the 22 other countries but because there are just too many guns floating around in the US. I know there is Switzerland (where I’m writing this), but that’s the exception to the rule and not the proof that the more guns the safer your home.
Switzerland is “the exception”??? Really? I’ve traveled all over the world, but I’ve never gone anywhere and seen guns have the magical property of inciting violence in human beings anywhere.
For whatever reason, the US is a more violent culture, but it isn’t because of the unique magical effect that guns have on Americans, but not Swiss.
We all know what races have propensities towards violence. It’s tough to accept reality but that’s what it is.
Maybe it is because the over the last several decades the whole idea of goodness and morality has been relentlessly mocked, while at the same time sex, violence and Godlessness have been pushed and promoted.
Go back 40 years and look at the movies, the songs, the TV shows and compare them to what our kids are exposed to today.
It isn’t guns – its the culture.
That reminds me of an interesting Turner Classic Movie I saw recently, called “The Moon is Blue”, from 1953: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_Blue . It was not approved by the motion picture association of that era and was even condemned by the Catholic church (meaning not even adults can see it). It’s actually a very tame romantic comedy but introduced a few words not uttered before on film, like “virgin” and “mistress”. Sometimes the culture should move beyond being prudish, while at the same time adults and children alike need to understand that statements like “I thought all bachelors had mistresses” were just meant to be funny and not taken literally.
PeterRRRRR, I agree with your statement that mentally ill people are no more likely to commit acts of violence than the general population.
Further, spree killers are perhaps mentally ill due to experiences (stress, depression, PTSD) vs disease (schizophrenia). Meaning their condition could likely be treated vs merely mitigated via meds. Recognition of this ambiguity would require society to more mature view of mental health.
To Bob’s point, spree killers make their intentions well known before acting. The FBI has developed profiles for this. It could be detected early and prevented. Simply taking their threats seriously would help.
As an Australian, I attended primary and high schools that were (and still are) a collection of brick and timber buildings spread over a few acres, with direct public access from the surrounding streets and absolutely no security whatsoever, Newtown has reminded me that I cannot recall a single incident of that kind in this country in my 49 years so far.
When a deranged young-ish man shot and killed over 30 adults and children at Port Arthur, in Tasmania, our government instituted a guns buyback for all semi-auto weapons, yet it never crossed the collective mind that a school might be next. And it never happened. Not once.
What is it about the American experience in the last 60 years that makes it so compelling to take a weapon to soft targets at all, no matter the location? Surely a mental health issue, as so many have already commented upon, but WHY is it a modern American phenomenon?
It’s not a “modern American phenomenon”. Do a little research and you’ll find they happen all over the world (just a few weeks ago a madman in china knifed a bunch of school kids), and it’s not a “modern phenomenon” either:
“Let’s start with some facts. School shootings are not a new or a recent phenomenon. The first school shooting reported in the United States was in 1764 and resulted in the school teacher and 9-10 students being killed. Since the first one in 1764 there were ten school shooting between 1853 and 1889, twenty one between 1902 and 1937, twelve between 1940 and 1949, twenty in the 1950’s, twelve in the 1960’s, thirteen in the 1970’s, twenty in the 1980’s, twenty in the 1990’s, seventeen in the 2000’s and in the 2010’s we are currently at seven. Not to make light of or to diminish the pain the affected family suffer, but violence and evil is nothing new. The reality is that when looked at by decade the amounts of shootings have stayed fairly steady with a slight increase since 1970”
https://www.warriortalknews.com/2012/12/school-shootings-a-new-phenomenon.html
Question is re-phrased then: Why is it a long standing American phenomenon?
no, mass killing is not new. Neither is armed bullying. Peasants were always disarmed as much as possible, except when training was needed for the next land grab by the local psychopath/king. This is why the monarchs of the developing European states disarmed their aristocrats eventually. Being brought up to commit war, there were a few that did not manage their lives and inflicted losses on the King, by challenging old advisors to duels Yes, very noble, old man of 55 against a 20 something . Merely having an army meant nobles were more likely to rebel. The carrying of swords was restricted for this reason. A read of the 19th century book on sword techniques, “The Sword and the Centuries” covers the disarming of the nobillity to maintain order.
As for right to bear arms, wasn’t that originally the right to raise an army, since the citizens had rebelled against a remote ruling class?
Does nothing toi explain why schools are seen as worthy targets more in one part of the civilised world than all of the others put together.
Well, the biggest problem with that is, well, what happens to someone when you get it wrong. What happens when you publicly identify someone as being potentially nuts but, well, they aren’t. What happens to their chances of getting a job? Will they be forced, without due process, to not live near a school? You run the risk of creating a new class of homeless, a new blacklist, of people who haven’t actually done anything yet.
Do we really want to live in Minority Report where not only do they predict what you’re going to do, but punish you before it happens?
This essay is similar to Obama’s excuse: “it’s Bush’s fault.” And it makes as much sense.
Gun free zones are killing zones. Feminized primary schools, single mother hood as an institution, and Liberalism as religion are dysfunctional and doomed to failure.
Dan Kurt
We’ve had four different Presidents since Reagan– two from each party– who could have done something, but didn’t. Blaming Reagan for problems in 2012 isn’t really fair.
… and you believe that it’s easier to build than break things don’t you?
Great point!! Considering the attack on government has been the mantra (“Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem”) for the last 30 years.
I agree with Bob on the mental health issue, but I also agree with some constriction on gun sales. Australia implemented some restrictions and public shooting sprees disappeared. Likewise, Canada makes people wait 30 days and requires two people to vouch for the character of the gun buyer.
My personal history suggest that the more a person wants guns the less he should be allowed to have them. Personally, I would like to be able to walk through this world and know that mentally ill AND mentally challenged don’t have (easy) access to guns.
You can tell if someone is ‘challenged’ if they tell you that gun ownership is the guarantor of freedom: like they are capable of taking on the U.S. army or something, with their stash of glocks, shotguns and rifles. That’s not the kind of person that should be able to own a gun, because they are either mentally ill or mentally challenged or both and I don’t want them lording over me because they have a gun. They have a gun, sure, but we have institutions, and they should be bound for them.
There’s plenty of “constrictions” on gun sales right now. The VAST majority of legal firearms transactions are vetted through the federal NICS system.
The PROBLEM is when guns get acquired illegally. Like when you shoot someone in the head four times, and then steal their guns. For instance.
You can pass all the laws you want. Laws don’t stop criminals! After all, isn’t that the defining characteristic of a criminal???
So you’d prevent me owning my .22LR handguns which are just used on a range for shooting at paper targets?
I’ve met a few people at the range who shoot deer and boar to eat (I understand that) plus of course they enjoy hunting living creatures (I don’t). Take away high power rifles and you’ll take that away, but I suspect the majority of animals killed by guns are squirrels and the like, which can easily be killed with air rifles.
One person with a gun does not deter a would be Tyrant. An armed population does.
Thanks for making my point. Perhaps some readers didn’t think there were people like you around.
Btw – I’m not sure how you and your cohorts would define a tyrant, would be or otherwise. The U.S. army, however, is designed to destroy large armed populations, that happened to be well disciplined, coordinated, and even clothed in uniforms, like the former Soviet Red Army, or the current Chinese People’s Liberation Army. I’m sure you and your band of merry men, well armed by the Walmart Depot and well coordinated would get their licks in, but just.
Bob, it’s true you could say that the slippery slope related to the mentally ill began under Governor Ronald Reagan in California. Then, as now, the debate was largely about the expense and who would bear it, but it was also about abuses within the system, with people being effectively jailed or warehoused against their will, often on little or no pretense that they actually had a mental illness, and also abuses of the system, with criminals using the mentally incompetent defense after committing heinous crimes. Remember, we in California had just experienced the Manson murders, Robert Kennedy’s assassination, a huge increase in psychedelic drug usage by the youth as well as a large influx of returning Vietnam veterans suffering from their own experiences.
I don’t doubt part of what you say is true, that self-reliance was a tenet of the Reagan legacy, but to lay blame solely on that premise is fallacious.
Warehousing is not the answer, or at least not the sole answer. Treatment is what is needed, and yet ObamaCare pays only lip service to mental health. We are on the verge of bankrupting the country and actually reducing the quality of care for our seniors, who we have promised to care for, in order to expand coverage to the ‘working poor’ who already essentially have free healthcare by visiting local emergency rooms. What we really needed was to extend the level of care to our seniors and expand coverage in areas where it was sorely needed, such as mental health, prenatal care and children without parental coverage. We can’t pay for the level of care we already committed ourselves to under the Medicare/Medicaid programs, and we definitely will be unable to swallow ObamaCare without huge tax increases on the half of the population who are working and paying the tax burden for the other half of the population as it is. Just wait, it’s coming.
What we really needed was real health care reform which is as simple as regulating the prices in the industry through an agency representing government, doctors, and insurers to reduce prices for everyone.
A larger part of the prices for health care is due to doctors having to file multiple appeals to get paid enough just to cover costs. When 66% of your operating budget is dealing with insurance companies you have a problem – and that is the current state. ObamaCare does nothing to resolve that, only extend it to even more of the populace.
Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, etc. could all be greatly simplied, benefits improved, and individuals better taken care of it managed properly. Personally I’d replace them all with a single program – requirements to get in would be age (too young or too old) and ability to provide for oneself; yes, that would mean a lot of people presently on welfare would actually have to get a job; but it would also mean a lot of people not on welfare/social security would be able to get it.
It depends on how one defines “too old or too young” and “provide for oneself”. Not sure I can trust government that gets elected based on what they say they will deliver. Best case…they spend little and deliver nothing; worst case…they deliver everything they promised and more by misallocating the nations’ resources no matter the cost.
If you are in the minority then the government is always going to misallocate funds then, as the majority rules.
It’s because the majority rules that the majority has to understand who is really paying for stuff. It’s not the government, since they have no money of their own. And it’s not the rich since they are a tiny minority that nevertheless takes the financial risks needed for progress. What’s left to pay is everyone in the majority…the middle class and the poor.
[…] I find him, neither can the local police, local medical officials, or even the FBI. We don’t keep track of these likely threats to our communities when it would be so easy to do so. It doesn’t even […]
Hey, Bob, while we’re at it why don’t we put all the potential Adam Lanza’s (loosely defined as those who have been or should be in mental institutions?) into internment camps? I know I’d sure feel safer if those loons were locked up. At the very least, a national database of everyone taking a high dose of antidepressant medication so I know which of my neighbors to keep an eye on.
Doing something about the mentally ill. Banning assault guns (although that would take a long time to get rid of all of them). Limiting gun clips. But most of all, and the hardest thing, change the culture of the nation. I don’t hold out much hope for any of these unfortunately.
The event of the 14th is truly tragic and my heart and wishes go out to those
affected by it.
The empirical, unemotional fact is that this country has too many guns with too
few controls. The answer to a tragedy such as this one is never and should never
be “more guns”. Anyone who insists on zero gun control needs to be taken behind
the shed and beaten with a stick. Or perhaps the butt of their own gun. Gun
control does not mean “no more guns for anybody!”. Gun control means putting in
a frame-work within which law enforcement and private citizens can operate in
order to maintain a balance between the needs of hunters to provide food for their
families, police forces to keep the peace and individuals to protect themselves,
their families and their homes. It also allows those who choose to live a life
without guns the ability to do so.
The military, arguably the largest consumer of guns of all kinds doesn’t hand out
guns willy-nilly to all who apply. By the time you get a real gun with live ammo
in the military, you have gone through a fair bit of training, and not just
marksmanship. Also, if someone finds an abandoned, standard-issue rifle on a
military base, you bet your ass they will be able to find out who lost their
weapon. What does this imply? The military has control over their guns… gun-
control, if you will.
There should be an algorithmic, apolitical approach to gun control that could
satisfy the great majority of citizens, both gun owners and non-gun-owners.
As usual the only ones that will never be satisfied are the extremists on both
ends of the spectrum: the Archie Bunker “guns for everybody” side and the
zero-gun types.
Guns should be restricted according to their intended target: pests/vermin,
game animals, humans, large numbers of humans, etc.
Personally, I would like to see a free-form text descriptive field filled in for
each firearm sold that contains the purchaser’s stated intended use. I would love
to see what statistical data emerges from this. Who (in general, not which
individuals) claims “hunting” as the reason for buying semi-automatic assault rifles?
Few (but some) restrictions should exist on hunting rifles, pest-control firearms
and their ammunition, while increasing tiers of restrictions should apply to
human-target firearms.
Non-repeating, low-capacity, low-caliber handguns could involve form-filling
and treating ammunition purchases like alcohol and cigarette sales — not to
minors, ID must be showed, and not all shops can sell all types of ammo, etc.
Paperwork and wait-times, psychological evaluations, registering with local
police force, yearly proof of competency and re-registration should apply in
varying degrees to semi-auto, high-caliber weapons. Also, gun-owner liability
insurance, just like auto-insurance should be a requirement. Driving without
insurance carries a hefty fine, not to mention ruinous costs in the event of
an accident. The same should apply to owning a gun, even one that is locked in
a cabinet in your own home.
A system of peer-review for gun ownership could be useful. In the event an
individual is involved in a public discharge of a firearm, those who reviewed
them and those they have reviewed are re-examined. In other words, when you
vouch for someone, you are putting your reputation on the line. their misdeeds
could cost you your guns. I believe soemthing like this may already be in place.
Perhaps it should be used more…
Any system of gun-control needs to have a feedback loop that allows for
integrating population density, firearm density and gun-use statistical data.
Factors of gun ownership and use that increased criminal activity would be
increasingly restricted, and carry increasing insurance premiums. Likewise,
areas in which gun-violence is low could result in a relative local relaxing of
gun ownership registration and enforcement. If it wasn’t a problem, it wouldn’t
be an issue.
The only way to get any kind of gun control accepted in this country would be to
make it algorithmically managed and not politically motivated. We are still at
least a decade and thousands more lost lives away from such a situation but it
will be the only way forward if we wish to retain a semblance of living in a
democracy.
Disclaimer: I am a non-gun-owning American living in Canada. My view of guns is much
like my view of perfume. In the right place, at the right time in the right amount, it is wonderful.
But too much in a crowded space can make it hard to breathe.
“Disclaimer: I am a non-gun-owning American living in Canada. My view of guns is much like my view of perfume. In the right place, at the right time in the right amount, it is wonderful. But too much in a crowded space can make it hard to breathe.”
That is a cute little argument you have there. The problem with it is, you can never know in advance WHEN or WHERE you will need a gun. Criminals are super annoying that way. They don’t notify you in advance. And they don’t qualify you in advance either, at least, not in the way you are hoping they would. “Bob Loblaws, let’s see, as far as I can tell, he did not qualify to own a gun, according to the standards of the Province of Ontario. So let’s keep it sporting, and we’ll only bring knives!”
I have experience with mentally unstable people who refuse treatment and there’s not a lot of options. As an example, women can get free breast cancer screenings which is wonderful, others can show support for a disease by wearing a ribbon or a bracelet. How does one show support for mental illness? Is there free mental health screenings? If you were hearing voices would you want to go and get screened?
We know if we see someone having chest pains, we should offer them some sort of assistance. In the US, the first reaction is to call 911 and ask for help. Some of us even take first aid classes to help people in distress. But what does one do with someone who is profoundly mentally disturbed and needs help?
California state psychiatrists earn up to $844,000 a year .
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-11/-822-000-worker-shows-california-leads-u-s-pay-giveaway.html
I don’t know how practical your proposal is.
Good point. Abuse of a system paid for by taxpayers is always a possibility, but especially for something like mental illness. Almost everyone appears to be mentally ill to someone else. For example, consider how men are portrayed in Lifetime movies. And I’ve also heard that Liberalism itself is a mental disease, especially since many otherwise intelligent people seem to promote it. Reagan was right to leave it to the private sector.
Both extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism are considered brain disorders since they lack common sense and the ability to compromise. There’s nothing special about the private sector. Enron and the many other large corporate collapses over the past decade were full of incompetence and stupidity.
What’s special about the private sector is that their income is based on delivering stuff people want, as evidenced by their willingness to pay for it. They can’t print money or misallocate other people’s money.
It’s a good thing private enterprise isn’t allowed to buy politicians, because if they could, then they might start to… hey wait a minute…
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a system of government in which the majority ruled? The politicians who allowed themselves to be bought would not be re-elected unless they had the consent of the mojority…hey wait a minute…
I see there are more than one ‘scott’ here so I am changing ‘scott’ (first comment) to “Scott in Beijing”
Merry Christmas
The NRA can get us started with a list of 4 million dangerous people.
[…] Cringely – Reagan and Newtown […]
Looking in from Canada, it’s great to see the debate from afar on the amendment. This column is a micro debate for the whole country on this subject
I’ve done my best to scan a large portion of these comments (not all of them from my iPhone, but a lot) and I was surprised by the fact that during the debate there was no mention of proper firearm storage. If you all think that a solution will be found soon for America’s differences on the amendment then great; but I can tell you – and you all know – that it’s not going to happen. SO… Why not focus on intelligent solutions like proper gun storage.
Come on…! What the heck is a middle aged woman, with weapons at hand, doing with firearms in her house along side a mentally unstable child WITHOUT TRIGGER LOCKS AND STORAGE IN AN APPROVED metal gun case! Honestly! Honestly! Nobody is saying you can’t own this gun or that gun, but if you do own a gun, you should be responsible for its save storage.
In Canada, if I left a loaded handgun in my bedside table and if my 4 year old son (no longer 4) stumbled upon it and played with it and shot his sister or mother, the owner of the gun, me, would GO TO JAIL, where I’d belong! Honestly! Focus on solving what CAN be solved, not what can’t!
Because I’m from another country, I respect America’s rights to solve its own problems and just so you know… I defend America’s right to bear arms in my country vociferously. I am a gun owner too. But guys… I care about my family’s safety enough to store my firearms safely, yet still have them at hand for their intended purpose.
That mother should be in jail for improper storage of firearms and aiding and abetting the use of firearms in a crime. How simple is that? It’s not a complex solution that still respects America’ right to bare arms.
I agree what Sandy says. I am Canadian myself too.
Storing guns in a storage unit and place it away from plain sight is one of a worthwhile solution. Every gun owner can do this quite easily.
For dealing with mental illness, that is a totally different thing comparing to a storage unit. People can snap unnoticed and no way of knowing how to control that. Take example of Fort Hood shooting. That shooter is a psychiatrist and even him did not sneak for help instead of grabbing a gun. I think the reason why he snapped was workplace related issue. Again, mental health is not something a mechanic can fix. The brain is just simply too emotional.
I strongly suggest multiple approach solutions to this. Look at other countries and see of how they solved their gun related crimes. Storing guns in gun unit is just one small idea worth looking into. I am sure there are other non-taxing, low cost solutions out there just not being noticed.
Agree, Guns need to be more safe , locked up at home and more safety features added to prevent accidents/ misuse. Gun manufactures seem to be exempt from having to add safety improvements. There isn’t one magic solution to this need to address this on many fronts over time to have an impact.
The older I get, the more sorrow I feel for ordinary Americans — brutalized, lied to, and pillaged by the plutocrats and their toxic social policies. The profits are monopolized by the 0.1%, the losses are paid by the 99%, and it’s all legitimated by a toxic authoritarianism — a violent, predatory boosterism which glorifies our ceaseless imperial wars, but more importantly, allows for Wall Street’s trillion dollar crimes to go unpunished. It’s all connected.
Don’t feel sorry. It’s just our way of keeping out the riff-raff. Like promoting the earthquakes in California, or the floods in the Gulf coast. Immigration laws don’t work so the press does what it can. 🙂
Bob, I think you’re correct in focusing on mental health. Guns are not going away, not now, not ever imho. There are so many already in the hands of people that it would make little difference for decades, if not longer, if no more guns were sold to anyone, so all the blather about “gun control” is simply futile posturing by politicians looking for facetime. I guess one thing that could be done is eliminate the sale of ammunition and the components for people who load their own, but again, there are tons of that stuff already out there. So, let’s forget about controlling guns, that genie is out of the bottle, and try to do something about identifying the real problem: critically disturbed people.
Guns have become a public health issue and the NRA is acting just like Big Tobacco did when the Surgeon General called them out.
Time to address this threat to public safety and health.
I think this cartoon sums this debate up, quite effectively.
https://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/2012/12/24/
and I’m just waiting for the NRA to use it as an argument.
Identifying these loonies may not be as easy as we think. Best drummer I ever played with was a well-known pro named Jim Gordon. He was friendly and kept rock solid time. A year or so after we met, he murdered his mother. As we found out after the fact, Jim had been an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Onset of the disease was a bit later than usual in his case.
50 years ago this shooter would long ago have been confined on a permanent basis to the state mental hospital, probably pumped chock full of Thorazine.
Today you can hide away your deeply disturbed children and pretend you’re “homeschooling” them.
And HIPAA and other laws make it essentially impossible to identify these potential killers.
I don’t see any way to change the above – the shooter, and up until the end his parent simply were not interested in seeking treatment.
“simply identify and treat the hostiles within our society”
And you want THE government doing that.
Maybe someday they will declare rabble-rousing journalists “Hostilies”.
As for pointing the finger at Reagan, it would seem we’ve had four different Presidents since, to correct the situation.
Yet they didn’t.
So we are just going to throw everybody who looks or sounds a little bit odd into a mental institution, are we?
Great:- That sounds like progress.
Bob, your proposed solution would transform ours into a society in which people who are suspected of the intention of committing a crime are held against their will without having actually committed any wrongdoing, and it wouldn’t even guarantee an end to these kinds of incidents. You can’t guarantee safety, only the illusion of safety.
Guns should know their owner, refuse to fire in a different hand.
Every American should have an explosive implanted in their head, triggers implanted in every forefinger. Majority of present forefingers would trigger the explosive.
Dumb and willfully ignorant people should not be allowed to interact with reasonable persons.
Guess it’s time to create a new organization, Precrime Unit…. Like the movie, The Minority Report. This way, we still have the freedom knowing someone is monitoring the crime and preventing one.
I think this precrime unit is a real possiblitiy. We have the software and the hardware to do the search. I know privacy will be a major concern but the tradeoff is a major reduced crime. If the precrime unit indentify a possible suspect, call him in to do a pre-screening test.
Or come up a way to “measure” or “scale” of a risk future suspect. If responsiblity of handle guns is low, risk goes up. If household guest like Adam has mental issue, risk goes up. Other risk factor such as income and life handling stress is also included. This is a nice way to catch “snap” criminals.
Again, who can afford this? Is it worth the hassle? Maybe a balance with precrime unit and common sense prevention such as screening for gun purchasing and gun storage unit.
By the way, you cant blame Ronald Reagan of what he did. Comparing other country of how much money spent on mental illness, US is pretty much in the middle; 7% of whole health care expenses where minimum suggested expenses is around 5%. So, US just simply responded of what other country was doing.
A lot of ranting and raving everywhere on this. No Solutions.
Fact: There are a lot ( a truly staggering amount, my local steel mill melts down a few thousand a month) of Guns in the USA.
Fact: That fact will never change.
Fact: No one could have stopped this without another gun. That is what happened. Police showed up with Guns and it was soon over.
Fact: I cried a lot about this.
Fact: No one has a solution that works here.
Fact: His mother thought she was helping her son.
Fact: Mental illness is still a huge problem.
Happy New Year
We may not have the Block and Nold paper, but we do have the Myers paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00583.x/abstract
Falsehood: Armed security would have stopped this tragedy
Fact: Armed security@ Columbine High School failed to stop that tragedy.
Fact:US Suffers a Mass Killing Every 2 Weeks:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/
Someone mentioned Schizophrenics(sp?).
Just wanted to point out that they are by and large harmless,
Are we asking the right questions here
https://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=233288
More often than not (80% of the the time?) people who go on a shooting rampage, have been repeatedly, extremely sexual abused during childhood (or extremely physically abused or extremely emotionally abused) by an authority figure: father, mother, older sibling, uncle, teacher, priest! Anyone in the latter group are not going to seek help for a child that has been severally abused; because they (the perpretrator) will end up in prison (well in the case of priests -no prison!) The latter group won’t even think about the fact that anyone has been damaged by their abuse – they are enjoying it too much! WHY DOES THIS FACT NEVER EVER APPEAR IN THE MEDIA!
When a child is robbed of his or her childhood via repeated, violent sexual/physical/emotional abuse by a family member or authority figure; the child grows up angry (and ashamed). Naturally anyone that’s been violentally abused is in great emotional pain because – someone who should be protecting them has in fact harmed them. People who are in the latter type of great pain – hide the pain. In fact hide the abuse because it is too painful to think or talk about the abuse. Yes these people are quiet loners. That doesn’t mean all quiet kids have been abused, far from it. The anger keeps building as the child grow older to the point that they are extremely angry .. we call someone who is really angry … mad. Which is an apt description. One day these abused kids who are now adults decide to get even in an explosive manner. And guns make it so easy, Especially an automatic hand gun that shoots 20 rounds of armour piercing bullets. The latter is the favourite of mad people; because this gun is so pervasive in homes across the USA. What is an automatic hand gun that shoots 20 rounds of armour piercing bullets doing in homes, is the question that needs to be answered (and then corrected!)
Last point – there are likely – only – a handful of therapists in the entire USA who have the required skill sets to help any child that has been severely abused – to make them whole again! And this therapy will have to go on for a lifetime; there is no instant quick fix! One of the few experts in this field, with a proven track record, is Terry Hunt, EdD, “is a nationally known psychologist and certified bioenergetic therapist. He is co-author of Emotional Healing; Secrets to Tell, Secrets to Keep; and Addiction as Transformation. marketstreethealth.com” RobertX. if you talked/ interviewed Hunt – I wouldn’t be too surprised if you ended up doing a piece on PBS.
Forgot to mention :”Finally, a meta-analysis of 22 American-based studies, those done with national samples as well as local or regional representative samples, suggested that 30-40% of girls and 13% of
boys experience sexual abuse during childhood[12].” The latter is just sexual abuse and doesn’t include severe physical abuse or severe emotional abuse! So how many hundreds of thousands of adults, that were abused when they were children, are walking time bombs in the USA (with very easy access? Oh check out the preferred gun to use for maximum death rate – the FN-57
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznhJ7ZBFbo
It’s because a mentally ill person, from a broken home, used a gun, to murder children, in a school, in a very rich neighborhood, and then commit suicide. This story has something (horrible) for everyone. It plays on fears of law abiding citizens who fear being shot in their home. It plays on fears of parents who think it not safe to send their kids to school. It plays on fears of wholesome families who feel divorcing is terrible for kids. It plays on fears of the rich who believed themselves sacrosanct to crime in their world. It gives the suicide hotline some kind of edge too I’m sure.
Your argument for a comparable mental illness database may have merit but it seems that it would not have stopped the above from happening. This man was free and he ‘snapped’ and went on a killing spree. No psychologist or psychiatrist predicted this – although since he did have a history with them they could have prescribed no habitation and ownership in relation to CWMDS (class-room weapons of mass destruction [guns]).
Unfortunately people are assholes. Gun nuts want guns so they may be able to kill someone some day, god willing. Pitt bull owners, and the like, want violent animals so that those may maul or kill someone someday, god willing. And they are all mentally ill. After-all, why do you think that you cannot carry weapons on military installations and military installations do not allow their troops to carry their own weapons or ammunition.
A few comments and a practical suggestion.
There are methods/defenses to stop automatic weapons. Ask the police, they have ideas. Sometimes it may be defensive and sometimes it may be aggressive but their are options besides helplessness or armed guards. Nothing is likely to be 100% effective but neither is an armed guard in every case.
My suggestion is to recognize that the most staunch faction of the gun lobby is of the view that bearing arms is a defense against a totalitarian state developing. They have a cold logic that should be recognized IMO. Power corrupts is an old and sadly true statement it seems.
I think the gun lobby is very sensitive to Ruby ridge etc and what happened there. They see the police as dressing in black, wearing armor and carrying assault and “tech” weapons as threatening. They want assault weapons to protect themselves against the police (state). The hunting story is a ruse IMO.
I say PARITY should be tried. Mutual disarmament in small steps. Regulate the arms industry by regulating the police. Make it illegal to manufacture any weapon or ammunition not used by the police and then the police are in the drivers seat instead of the NRA. What the police carry becomes the issue. The police have huge advantages in numbers, armor, communications and gases/smoke etc etc. Hire more police, arm them less and protect them more. Severely limit what weapons can be manufactured.
This will be a small step toward reducing these crazy shootings by removing certain guns altogether while reducing the perceived threat of the police state. This would be a mess to implement across the states but the fairness of it would give it some traction.
I’m sure conservatives like Reagan wanted to close State Hospitals to save money. But there was plenty of liberal pressure to close them too. Movies like “Titicut Follies” and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” emphasized the negative side of involuntary committment. So rather than provide for better medical and judicial review of mental hospitals, States largely abandoned them. As a result we get the occasional mass murder, and ever so much more “petty crime,” ranging from panhandling to armed assaul,t from the mentally ill living on the streets.
We need a new program to treat the mentally disturbed. The dangerous ones should be kept from contact with the public. Also, they certainly should not have access to guns. Sounds like some kind of confinement is required. However, it should be peaceful and pleasant, not like the mental hospital in the “One Flew Over” movie.
As for guns, the wording of the second amendment clearly shows that gun ownership was needed for a well-regulated militia, not private citizens. The founding fathers were worried about the possible use of the army against the citizens. The well-regulated and armed militia was intended to prevent this.
[…] Our mental health oversight system in this country has been seriously broken since the 1980s. This must be fixed, but none of the arguments in this essay are weakened by this fact; better gun control is still critical for all the reasons given here, even if we improve our mental health care system immensely. […]
Thanks for the Reagan education. Republican politics is for an imperial society of have and have nots.
Just the facts — Republican Presidents since 1968: Nixon criminal (Watergate), Reagan criminal (Iran-Contra), Bush41 criminal (stole a Canadian computer program and sold it as USA), Bush43 criminal (fucked USA) and passed the buck to scapegoats. Have you noticed a pattern yet! I’ll tell you — “They’re all above the law” and can do what they want. What does that say to the citizens — “If they can do it so can I” Anarchy for ever.
And I may add your big brother idea is just as stupid — knowing where sick people live. The next step is knowing what normal people think, do and say — Oh that’s Google’s job! Google will be protected by the CIA and FBI because because they need court approval to spy on you. Google does it with or without your permission and blames it on a glitch!
I see society in 2013 having a problem. It is what I saw with music ten years ago — your work I can steal for free so why should I give you a living! But it is with everything now bridges, roads, schools. I want them in excellent condition but I refuse to pay for them with my tax. And those with their hands on the
wheel want a right royal pay and get it because they are in control.
The ability of people to have excessive force now means that the police must use greater force to protect themselves. It is an escalation that makes economic inflation control look simple. 100 years ago a cop’s needs were cheap today its a minor fortune to rig a cop — all tax. In WWII a jeep cost $1000 (give or take) today its equivalent is $100,000 of your tax and no war bonds. The enemy makes bombs out of bathroom chemicals, say $20, and that destroys a $100,000 car.
You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to see that the USA is fast going bankrupt. So to save money it makes its own citizen pay more for less and worse services.
A state should first look after its workers citizens and disabled.* That is the social contract. Not now in USA — its every man for himself. Destruction is its end.
* Business since Reagan looked first for money and not the welfare of their workforce.
“A state should first look after its workers citizens and disabled.” How hard do I need to work to be considered a “worker citizen” and be entitled to be taken care of by the state (i.e. other citizens)?
Its better to spend on yourself first before you give your money away to others!
That’s family or city or state or nation.
The money to look after you by the city or nation comes from the tax payer — you!
Other states should look after their own business first.
We should do the same before we give YOUR and mine money to other states to build their roads houses or give them jobs!
According to the article below, the mentally ill have been getting discharged since the 1960s. But you blame it on Reagan. How convenient. https://www.nydailynews.com/insane-violent-street-article-1.1225716
Also, budgets originate in the House, which was controlled by the democrats Reagan’s entire time in office.
I’d like to comment on “The best defensive planning starts with identifying people in the community who are a threat to society and to themselves and getting them treatment.”
We in the US shouldn’t be so self-centered and we should take the time to look elsewhere in world and compare what’s comparable.
These mass shootings, especially in schools, are a specialty of the US. They appear to be extremely rare in any other country. Yet I hear no one in the US ask why.
The only countries who have effectively implemented population screening to “identifying people in the community who are a threat…” are/were all dictatorships (former USSR, north Korea, Mao’s China…).
The question will always be: Who determines that _you_ are sane? Who determines that _you_ are not a threat?
Why do we think the solution always is a single and simple one?
Banning guns vs controlling people vs education vs something else…
It’s time the very young 233yo USA grows up and starts to realize that clinging to guns like a child to his toys is puerile and not defensible.
Banning guns is the easiest. Controlling populations is the hardest and riskiest.
It won’t prevent mass shootings, but like in other countries it’ll make it a very rare occurrence.