I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: okarol on January 08, 2011, 04:11:27 PM
-
Gabrielle Giffords' Suspected Shooter Identified
Jared Lee Loughner Tackled After Allegedly Shooting Congresswoman; Federal Judge, Four Others Dead
By RICHARD ESPOSITO and LEE FERRAN
Jan. 8, 2010 —
The man who allegedly shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has been identified as 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, ABC News has learned.
Giffords was shot, along with several other people including federal judge John Roll, outside a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz., where she was holding an event called Congress on Your Corner. Five people were killed, including Roll and a nine-year-old child.
On a Myspace page apparently maintained by Loughner, he said goodbye to friends and said, "Please don't be mad at me... I cannot rest."
Authorities said the shooter was in custody.
Loughner reportedly recently made several YouTube videos with walls of text protesting the government and ranting against low literacy rates.
"Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner. This video is my introduction to you!" the video, uploaded Dec. 15, says. "My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don't dream -- sadly... My ambition -- is for informing literate dreamers about a new currency; in a few days, you know I'm conscience dreaming! Thank you!"
Giffords, a Democrat who was just sworn in for her third term in Congress, survived the shooting and doctors said she's expected to recover.
President Obama called the shooting "an unspeakable act."
YouTube Video: 'If You Call Me a Terrorist...' (looks like removed now)
In another video posted on YouTube, Loughner uses repetitive, convoluted logic when defining terrorism.
"If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon. I define terrorist. Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon," the video, entitled "Introduction: Jared Loughner," says. "If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist. Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem."
In the same video, Loughner accuses the government of mind control.
"In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in God!" it says.
In the YouTube profile, the account holder, identified as Loughner, lists "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf" among his favorite books.
A former classmate of Loughner's told ABC News he was extremely political in high school, but not radical. The classmate said Loughner once met Giffords in 2007 and said he thought the congresswoman was "unintelligent."
According to a witness, the shooter "came out of nowhere" and unloaded two clips on Giffords and the gathered crowd, striking Giffords in the head.
Bystanders then tackled the shooter and held him until authorities intervened.
Here's another of his videos: America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country! http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/f/0/3L1lsLU-kUw
-
I picked up this Story, as Breaking News, on the Internet Today. I felt Sick.
-
Here's a photo of him - 22 years old - so young - what a tragedy all around.
-
Another witness said the shooter came up to her and specifically asked to speak to Giffords at her meet and greet in front of Safeway. He was told he'd have to go to the end of the line, which he did, and when it was his turn to speak to her, he started firing.
I know I shouldn't feel this way, but anyone who is so twisted that he feels he has to go shoot innocent people, well, I feel sorry for them. And I can't help but think of his parents. I have no idea who they are, but it must be a special kind of horror to know that your son is essentially a terrorist and a murderer. And you are right, Okarol, it's a tragedy all around.
Did anyone catch the news conference by the sheriff? He was massively angry and came right out and said that Arizona seems to be a magnet for extremists. I was surprised to hear how mad he was, blaming the vitriolic nature of present political discourse in this country. I guess he's old enough not to care what he says anymore!
-
I've been watching this all evening.
The Sheriff isn't the only one who thinks that the rhetoric that is spewed is what caused this shooting. My best friend actually blames Glenn Beck and Sarah Pailin and the things that they say for this. She thinks they may have inspired the shooting. For me, the first thing that came to mind was Sharron Angle and her "second amendment remedies"
People who have mental issues could easily take some of the things that are said literally
-
I feel that having a gun is a big responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to refrain from using guns in any sort of metaphor.
-
I feel that having a gun is a big responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to refrain from using guns in any sort of metaphor.
And aren't Republicans all about personal responsibility???
-
I feel that having a gun is a big responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to refrain from using guns in any sort of metaphor.
And aren't Republicans all about personal responsibility???
That's what they say! But to be fair, all of us should exercise personal responsibility. I know plenty of people who have guns who are very responsible and careful, but it only takes one nutcase to create mayhem like today.
-
I feel that having a gun is a big responsibility, and part of that responsibility is to refrain from using guns in any sort of metaphor.
Dear MooseMom,
You are absolutely correct. I am licensed to carry concealed guns myself and it is a wonderful privilege granted by the constitution that so few nations have anymore. Going through the concealed carry classes is a very sobering reality check on how much of a responsibility it is as well as a privilege.
It angers me greatly to see the flippant remarks by Angle and the other loon that ran against this congress woman, that is NOT the manner in which the many people I know who are responsible view our gun rights. We do NOT at all flaunt those rights nor does anyone know that we are carrying when we carry. That is our responsibility to all. The right to self defense is even recognized in the Bible.
As a person that would be called a tea party person, I understand that it is simple desires for folks to simply keep what they earn and have the opportunity to earn a fair wage and fair living that is at the heart of the movement. I have listened to Palin and Beck and not once is there anything what so ever that incites to violence in any of their commentaries.
If we are going to keep this great nation, all will need to refrain and stop polarizing every single issue in Democrat vs Republic, Liberal vs Conservative terms.
This guy is an unstable and mentally deranged person. I really don't remember this type of conversation about political affiliations when Reagan was shot. How things have changed in such a short period of time. I would hope we all remember the common bond we share as Americans lest that bond be broken. It is much more fragile than people think.
-
There are too many people who are making a lot of money in creating the impression that we are more polarized than we really are. There is money made in creating conflict. Obama won in 2008 because the majority of people who voted wanted an government that could work together to improve our country's future. The 2010 mid-terms were evident of the same theme. Obama got a shellacking because people are tired of the partisanship. Like you pointed out, most of us are tired of everything being labelled R/D, left/right, liberal/conservative.
Most Americans want to keep most of what they earn and have the chance to make a fair wage. I don't know anyone who doesn't want that very thing for himself and his family. I'm not sure that's necessarily a tea party thing only.
I don't know much about Glenn Beck, so I won't comment. Sarah Palin worries me because she seems to believe that she can determine who is a real American and who is not. I did not appreciate her rhetoric about how "small town Americans" had some sort of moral superiority, and her whole "small town America" versus "liberal elites" arguments are bogus. As I've said before, there is something very divisive about her...she seems to have to create a "them" to get people geared up. I listened to her give a speech at some school not long ago where she railed against the school system banning cookies in school because it was taking away rights from parents. The school board had never banned cookies, rather, they were discussing nutritional values of school lunches. I do believe that she is one of those who are making money out of trumped up conflict.
Hemodoc, I have a question about concealed carry. I'm neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, so I am not asking this out of any political belief. Why, if it is legal for you to carry a gun, does it have to be concealed? I mean, if I am concerned about my safety and am carrying a gun, if it is concealed, isn't it harder to get to when you need it? And wouldn't you want someone to KNOW that you're carrying a gun? I've always wondered this. Thanks for any enlightenment!
PS...I've never lived in a small town, so I guess I'm not really American. I couldn't help but wonder if "small town American" was code for "not Urban, ie non-white." That could be an unfair assessment, but that's how it struck me.
-
Jared Lee Loughner’s favorite YouTube link: ‘Let the bodies hit the floor!’
January 8th, 2011 11:52 pm ET
Jared Lee Loughner, the 22-year old suspect in the Sunday, January 8th Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D- Ariz.) and killing 6 others including a 9-year old girl, offers little, if any insight in his YouTube videos.
While Loughner’s YouTube postings give glimpses into what appear to be rambling and somewhat confusing posts on mind control, grammar and god, there is no specific or obvious reason for his actions.
The text in one video reads, "My hope — is for you to be literate! If you're literate in English grammar, then you comprehend English grammar. The majority of people, who reside in District-8, are illiterate — hilarious. I don't control your English grammar structure, but you control your English grammar structure."
Perhaps the most chilling item on Loughner’s YouTube post is a favorite link to another poster, showing a video of an American flag in an overgrown field. Later in the video, a masked person wearing a hooded sweatshirt and garbage bag pants appears. A word-bubble making a reference to B.C.E. appears as the video begins. B.C.E. is a calendar sometimes referenced by non-Christians, meaning, ’Before the Common Era,‘ ‘Before the Christian Era‘ or ‘Before the Current Era,’ rather than B.C. (‘Before Christ’) and A.C. ( ‘Anno Domini’- Latin for ‘in the year of our Lord.’). The video ends with the flag in flames.
The soundtrack for the favorite video features the song ‘Let the bodies hit the floor!’ by alternative rock band ‘Drowning Pool.’ The song has a somewhat dark history, as it was allegedly played loudly over a 10 day period by interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in 2003 to stress out Mohamedou Ould Slahi during interrogations.
Drowning Pool frontman Dave Williams has stated in interviews that the song is about being in a mosh pit, and not about violence. While there is no specific mention nor connection to the song by Loughner other than the favorite video, the opening lyrics are chilling in relation to the incident.
Jared Lee Loughner’s YouTube postings here
Lee’s favorite link with the Drowning Pool song here
Lyrics to ‘Let the bodies hit the floor!’ by Drowning Pool:
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Beaten, why for (why for)
Can't take much more
Here we go here we go here we go, now
One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me
One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Now!
Push me again (again)
This is the end
Here we go here we go here we go, now
One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me
One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Skin to skin, blood and bone
You're all by yourself but you're not alone
You wanted in and now you're here
Driven by hate, consumed by fear
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me
One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
http://www.examiner.com/cultural-issues-in-national/jared-lee-loughner-s-favorite-youtube-link-let-the-bodies-hit-the-floor
-
Lordy, who knows what the hell is going on in that kid's head?
-
There are too many people who are making a lot of money in creating the impression that we are more polarized than we really are. There is money made in creating conflict. Obama won in 2008 because the majority of people who voted wanted an government that could work together to improve our country's future. The 2010 mid-terms were evident of the same theme. Obama got a shellacking because people are tired of the partisanship. Like you pointed out, most of us are tired of everything being labelled R/D, left/right, liberal/conservative.
Most Americans want to keep most of what they earn and have the chance to make a fair wage. I don't know anyone who doesn't want that very thing for himself and his family. I'm not sure that's necessarily a tea party thing only.
I don't know much about Glenn Beck, so I won't comment. Sarah Palin worries me because she seems to believe that she can determine who is a real American and who is not. I did not appreciate her rhetoric about how "small town Americans" had some sort of moral superiority, and her whole "small town America" versus "liberal elites" arguments are bogus. As I've said before, there is something very divisive about her...she seems to have to create a "them" to get people geared up. I listened to her give a speech at some school not long ago where she railed against the school system banning cookies in school because it was taking away rights from parents. The school board had never banned cookies, rather, they were discussing nutritional values of school lunches. I do believe that she is one of those who are making money out of trumped up conflict.
Hemodoc, I have a question about concealed carry. I'm neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, so I am not asking this out of any political belief. Why, if it is legal for you to carry a gun, does it have to be concealed? I mean, if I am concerned about my safety and am carrying a gun, if it is concealed, isn't it harder to get to when you need it? And wouldn't you want someone to KNOW that you're carrying a gun? I've always wondered this. Thanks for any enlightenment!
PS...I've never lived in a small town, so I guess I'm not really American. I couldn't help but wonder if "small town American" was code for "not Urban, ie non-white." That could be an unfair assessment, but that's how it struck me.
Dear MooseMom, you are always the voice of reason.
As far as Sarah Palin, I suspect that this is the end of her political career, rightly or wrongly, she shall not live this event down. Her cross hairs was rightly criticized when it first came out and now she has an unmistakable association to a nut case. I don't know any politician that can survive such an association. She was already unelectable in my own opinion and certainly isn't my first choice at all to lead America. Her TV show has been cancelled and the over exposure she has already had coupled with this she will never be able to shrug away.
I would point out since people have such a short memory that her daughter received death threats for just appearing in the final of Dancing with the stars. If we are going to talk about the political vitriol of the last couple of years, how about a 50 year old comedian stating that their 16 year old daughter is now her 2011 target.
We are all losing our rights as those pulling the strings and pushing more conflict among people that actually agree upon much more than is apparent from our dubious labels of conservative or liberal will ever show. I am sick and tired of hearing about this is a democrat issue or a republican issue and then all thinking turns off after that. I remember the days of William F. Buckle engaging the opposition in long discussions that people actually watched. All we have today is the shouting match sound bites. We are losing our liberties simply because we are first of all giving away our common bonds.
Small town America used to symbolize self reliance and standing on your own two feet, but I am not sure we even have that any more. The small town farmer is gone to the large corporate food producers and giant conglomeration farms we now have today. Self sufficiency is a way of life in places like Alaska but not too many other places any more compared to only a couple of decades ago. When I grew up in Alaska, my father fed the family by hunting moose, caribou and a whole lot of salmon. That is simply a way of life up there that still persists today and is quite foreign to most people in the "lower 48" so I understand where Sarah Palin comes from in an old frontier type mentality. Up in Alaska, if you don't take care of yourself, the elements will get you without a doubt. People stop when they see someone on the side of the road since it takes very little time to die of exposure or have to deal with a wondering grizzly. It is a completely different culture that I have only seen in that one place.
Unfortunately, it doesn't play well in most of the urban areas which we are becoming more and more.
As far as concealed carry, with a proper holster, you can draw and use the gun in about one second with practice. It truly is immediate self defense but it is to be used legally only under the gravest extreme of immediate jeopardy to life or grave bodily harm. Fortunately, these situations are few and far between and I hope I am never once in one of those positions. I would point out that the first day back from Idaho last September, my wife was almost mugged at walmart here in CA. The man approached her and said, give me your purse. She didn't hear quite right and said, what did you say, he said give me your purse. She said, IN YOUR DREAMS and jumped in the car and locked the door. Fortunately, he wasn't armed and he left.
The reason concealed carry is preferred is because people simply get nervous and upset when they see a gun today. Quite understandable even though open carry is legal in most states, even here in gun phobic CA. The problem is that police don't take kindly to carrying a gun even if it is legal and you have a great chance of ending up your gun toting open carry excursion in the back of the police car with thousands of dollars of legal fees coming your way just to exercise your legal rights. So, in many ways, carrying concealed is preferred since you likewise don't tip off the bad guys to take you out first in a robbery situation.
Lastly, it is a felony to brandish a weapon, which means simply showing it in public situation in many states and they differ from state to state.
I spend a great deal of my time in northern Idaho now where camping, hunting and fishing is a very similar way of life as it was when I grew up in Alaska. The lakes, and streams and woods are spectacular, but they are also filled with grizzly, black bear, mountain lions and now with reintroduced wolves that are growing exponentially in numbers. They are not actually the native wolves for the area which were smaller and less aggressive than the transplanted Mackenzie Valley Canadian wolf which is a huge animal up to 180 pounds and simply a killing machine of unusual ability, especially in a pack. If you don't believe me, take a look at what was shot only a few miles from our house up in Idaho, 180 pound wolf, the photo is real.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20090623.htm
So, didn't mean to get into a long discussion on hunting and a different way of life, but I don't believe most "city" folks really understand the free and wild way some folks live off of the land just as all did over a hundred years ago. It is a way of life that is disappearing from encroachment of habitat and other reasons. It is a self reliant life where you use your wits and your back to survive. One of my friends is a little extreme. He grew up on a ranch in northern Idaho and is used to spending a couple weeks or more out in the boonies all by himself, a real mountain man. Sarah Palin has a very similar back ground to that which is out of the common experience of most Americans today, which is probably why some of her comments seem outrageous. In my mind, it just goes back to a different time in America that a lot of us old timers remember from growing up and we wish it was that way again. Sadly, that is not going to happen, but a large part of our American heritage is disappearing. I believe that is the collective nerve that Sarah Palin touches. It represents a way of life that we are losing.
Didn't mean to go on a long dissertation about all of this, but perhaps if folks simply understood each other better, what we say wouldn't be so provocative when in reality, much is just innocent comments.
-
Hemodoc, thank you for that very interesting post. I am a city girl myself, but the allure and the joy that one can get from living the way you do/did in Idaho/Alaska is not lost on me. I'm very glad that there are people in this country who are fortunate enough to live in what is considered to be our great frontier. There have been times lately when all I wanted to do is hole up in some cabin in Montana (in the summer!) and live in peace.
My family is from Cajun country. My father spoke a bastardized French until he started school. He was from a unique culture that is disappearing as it seems that this geographical area has become the rubbish bin of America. The wetlands are being destroyed by vast quantities of fertilizers and phosphates used by the agricultural conglomerates in the very state in which I now live; these chemicals seep into the waterways that ultimately feed the Mississippi river. There is a dead area of the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi. The disappearing wetlands leave Cajun country vulnerable to the Camilles and Katrinas of our time. A special way of life is disappearing. Self sufficiency is a way of life there, too, but as the waters are fouled, people more and more have to look to the state and federal government for help. Agribusiness will thrive at the cost of those people who just want to be left alone to live off the swamps and provide for their families.
I don't have to understand "the free and wild way" that some folks live in order to see its value. I have no reason to denigrate the way people live in our wild woods. In fact, I would want to see it preserved. Our nation is so geographically and topographically varied, so it is entirely understandable that the way people live would be influenced by their surroundings.
And thanks for the explanation re concealed carry. It makes more sense to me now.
-
Hemodoc, thank you for that very interesting post. I am a city girl myself, but the allure and the joy that one can get from living the way you do/did in Idaho/Alaska is not lost on me. I'm very glad that there are people in this country who are fortunate enough to live in what is considered to be our great frontier. There have been times lately when all I wanted to do is hole up in some cabin in Montana (in the summer!) and live in peace.
My family is from Cajun country. My father spoke a bastardized French until he started school. He was from a unique culture that is disappearing as it seems that this geographical area has become the rubbish bin of America. The wetlands are being destroyed by vast quantities of fertilizers and phosphates used by the agricultural conglomerates in the very state in which I now live; these chemicals seep into the waterways that ultimately feed the Mississippi river. There is a dead area of the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi. The disappearing wetlands leave Cajun country vulnerable to the Camilles and Katrinas of our time. A special way of life is disappearing. Self sufficiency is a way of life there, too, but as the waters are fouled, people more and more have to look to the state and federal government for help. Agribusiness will thrive at the cost of those people who just want to be left alone to live off the swamps and provide for their families.
I don't have to understand "the free and wild way" that some folks live in order to see its value. I have no reason to denigrate the way people live in our wild woods. In fact, I would want to see it preserved. Our nation is so geographically and topographically varied, so it is entirely understandable that the way people live would be influenced by their surroundings.
And thanks for the explanation re concealed carry. It makes more sense to me now.
Dear MooseMom, as long as we keep assinging labels to everyone, conservative, liberal etc., those very common traits that we all share shall be lost to the political debate and manipulation of people that is now the ideal of politics today. The 10 second sound bite is what motivates people and the most inflammatory rhetoric you can get in that 10 second sound bite the better. Where will that lead this nation? Certainly no where with much wisdom.
-
We've long had a history of fiery rhetoric and political assassination. We may think this is all new, but it isn't, not really. What makes this all feel particularly frightening and pervasive is the existence of the Internet. Instant communication can ignite firestorms in a nanosecond...there isn't always time for cooler heads to prevail. You can call people the most horrible names while sitting behind a computer screen in your underwear...
-
We've long had a history of fiery rhetoric and political assassination. We may think this is all new, but it isn't, not really. What makes this all feel particularly frightening and pervasive is the existence of the Internet. Instant communication can ignite firestorms in a nanosecond...there isn't always time for cooler heads to prevail. You can call people the most horrible names while sitting behind a computer screen in your underwear...
I try to get dressed before I call people names, it just seems more civilized.
-
As I see it over here in the UK, Sarah Palin is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. If she is to further her political career she has to appeal to a greater proportion of Americans, i.e. move towards the centre. The testing time is now. Keeping her gob shut over this issue, as she has done so far, isn't an option.
-
As I see it over here in the UK, Sarah Palin is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. If she is to further her political career she has to appeal to a greater proportion of Americans, i.e. move towards the centre. The testing time is now. Keeping her gob shut over this issue, as she has done so far, isn't an option.
Ah, Stoday, but it's so *peaceful* when she keeps her gob shut! Have you heard her speak before? It's like fingernails across a chalk board! >cringe!<
KarenInWA
-
LOL Attila the Hun?? I am no cheerleader for Palin but it's become clear that the issue with this shooter is not a conservative map, it is mental illness and warning signs that were not dealt with.
Some say, with precious little hard evidence, that the increasingly nasty tone of today's political discourse played a role in Loughner's incomprehensible attack. Maybe it did but, then again, maybe it didn't.
But as Loughner's grossly inappropriate grin goes viral on home pages and front pages from Arizona to Maine, it's abundantly clear that his shooting rampage was rooted deeply and dangerously in a mental illness that went untreated (if not unrecognized) for far too long.
-
AIR DATE: Jan. 11, 2011
In Loughner Case, Missed Signals and a Troubled Mental Past
SUMMARY
Friends, neighbors and classmates recall a troubled Jared Lee Loughner, prone to angry outbursts and anti-social behavior. A panel of mental health experts discusses the missed signals and challenges of cases like Loughner's.
LISTEN TO THIS PBS discussion online http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june11/mental_01-11.html
GWEN IFILL: As the investigation continues into the Tucson shootings, new questions are being raised about whether alleged attacker Jared Loughner slipped through the cracks in the state's mental health system.
NewsHour health correspondent Betty Ann Bowser reports on some of the apparently missed signals.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Well before Saturday's shootings, there were signs the alleged gunman had a troubled mental past.
Last year, Jared Loughner had five run-ins with campus police for classroom and library disruptions at Pima Community College. He was suspended in September on the same day campus police found a YouTube posting in which Loughner argued the school was illegal, according to the U.S. Constitution. Loughner officially withdrew from the college days later.
Then, on October 7, college administrators sent him a letter stating that, if he wanted to return, he'd need a letter from a mental health professional indicating his presence at the college doesn't present a danger to himself or others.
Classmates say Loughner was a troubled young man.
DON COOROUGH, former classmate of Jared Lee Loughner: I don't think he ever learned how to engage with the world socially and emotionally.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: Loughner's behavior in the months and weeks leading up to his withdrawal was worrisome. In his algebra class, he wrote "Mayhem Fest" all over his first quiz. He also blurted out random numbers and phrases, like, "How can you deny math?"
Ben McGahee his teacher.
BEN MCGAHEE, former math instructor of Jared Lee Loughner: This guy is not complying, unfortunately, and seems to be quite a threat to our class.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: One classmate, 52-year-old Lynda Sorenson, raised concern about his behavior in an e-mail released to The New York Times, writing in June: "We have mentally unstable person in the class that scares the living crap out of me. He is one of those whose picture you see on the news after he has come in to class with an automatic weapon."
In recent months, Loughner's online posts focused on written tirades against government, currency and even grammar on YouTube. Loughner also had two prior arrests on file in county police for the possession of drug paraphernalia in 2007 and vandalism in 2008.
CLARENCE DUPNIK, Pima County, Arizona, sheriff: There have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats.
BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Loughner was never convicted of a felony, and he managed to pass the instant background check required under federal law in November when he purchased a Glock pistol at this Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson. One year earlier, Loughner was rejected from enlisting in the U.S. Army after he admitted to using drugs.
GWEN IFILL: Now we explore some of the questions about mental health care with three who work in the field, Dr. Anthony Lehman, chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Bonnie Sultan, a sociologist with the Center for crime prevention and control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, and Brian Stettin, policy director for the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit that lobbies to remove legal barriers for mental health treatment.
Welcome to you all. Dr. Lehman, did the system fail?
DR. ANTHONY LEHMAN, University of Maryland School of Medicine: Well, I think we have to say it has.
Unfortunately, at least what we have heard so far about this man is it's an all-too-familiar story. As I understand, he began having problems as early as high school, dropped out of high school, and was identified as someone who was having problems, and then proceeded in some of the history that we just heard about with involvement with the police and problems in college, but never received, I guess as best we know, any mental health treatment.
We also heard the unfortunate comments of his family, his parents, who seemed to be confused about what was going on. And that part of the story here is all too familiar about the failures of mental health systems to respond to young people with serious mental illness. What, of course, is not typical is to result in this kind of violence.
GWEN IFILL: Bonnie Sultan, what do you think about that? Did the system fail Jared Lee Loughner, or was he so troubled, he would never have been caught?
DR. BONNIE SULTAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice: Well, I think that not only did the system fail this young man, but the correct systems were not in place.
For example, we didn't have police or other first-responders in all of the interactions that he had become aware of mental illness, become aware of what the warning signs were. For example, if they had crisis intervention training, this would be an opportunity for this young man to be taken in to the mental health sector, as opposed to now in to the justice system.
GWEN IFILL: Brian Stettin, what do you think about that? Is it -- is it possible for just a layperson to have said, this guy is weird, and then call the cops and stop mayhem, or was this just something that was going to happen or something that was unpreventable?
BRIAN STETTIN, Treatment Advocacy Center: Well, I certainly wouldn't call it unpreventable, nor would I say necessarily that someone speaking up would have prevented it. We simply don't know.
But it would have at least given -- created an opportunity for it to potentially be prevented. And I wouldn't necessarily say that reports had to be made to the police, when the behaviors noticed were not necessarily criminal.
But certainly the regional mental health agency that serves that part of Arizona has a hot line set up for the receipt of information about people who seem to be in need of mental health care. And no calls at any time came in from any of the folks who have talked since about how disturbed they were by his behavior.
GWEN IFILL: Now, why is that? I mean, I know you can't get inside their heads, but how is it that someone who acted out so overtly, allegedly, all these cases, there was never a single complaint, even though he had a police record?
BRIAN STETTIN: You know, I think the sad fact is that it simply doesn't occur to people that that's something they ought to do.
And my hope is that, if one lesson really comes from this horribly sad case, it's that people will speak up and make a call when they notice things like this happening in their own communities. I think that if people see, for example, child abuse taking place in their community, there is a natural tendency in most people, I think, to want to report that and say something about it. But this is an area...
GWEN IFILL: But that's behavior. That's an action that has been taken.
BRIAN STETTIN: Well, this is behavior, too. Jared Loughner's behavior was troubling enough to people that someone said that they were sitting by the closest chair to the door in the classroom, in fear of what he was going to do next.
Someone else said that when they heard that Congresswoman Giffords was shot, that, immediately, it sprung to mind that this was the individual who did it. So, there were behaviors that were noticed here, too.
GWEN IFILL: Dr. Lehman, how reasonable is it to make the link between mental illness and violence?
DR. ANTHONY LEHMAN: Well, I think they're -- I mean, that's a tricky question. And when these things occur, that always comes up.
Certainly, it's certainly true that, at times, folks with mental illness commit violent acts. But the reality is that that's not necessarily that much more common than in the general population. There are certain characteristics associated with increased violence.
So I think there's this misconception that most people with mental illness are violent, and, vice versa, most violent acts are committed by people with mental illness. But when we have these conversations, I think it's important to, just as the prior speaker said, to reflect on: What are the ways to be more attentive to the signs? What are the ways to intervene?
And there are a variety of levels of intervention, certainly before even having to call the police, that can be done to help somebody who seems to be having problems. So, I would hope that the lesson that we go away from this with is to intervene and to be aware as early as possible, I would say, in a young man like this, perhaps in high school to be aware of students who are having problems and to begin to try to understand what's going on with those kids at that point, before it gets to the point it has here, and then also to remember, though, that most people with mental illness do not commit violent acts.
GWEN IFILL: Bonnie Sultan, I was struck by a number from the National Institute of Mental Health -- 20 percent of young people suffer some sort of mental disorder, and 36 percent of them, only 36 percent of them, get treatment. What kind of intervention are we talking about that Dr. Lehman is alluding to here?
BONNIE SULTAN: Well, the type of treatment that can happen first and foremost is an education, not only for the mental health consumer, but for the public.
As Dr. Lehman said, this was an opportunity for folks to see that there was a problem with this young man and to get him the assistance needed. So, what we could have had here was a real opportunity and education for folks to get themselves into mental health treatment.
What we see is, there's a large stigmatization of people with mental illness in this country. So, even though there is a population of people dealing with mental illness, they're afraid of shame, they're afraid that people will judge them or think that they're perhaps dangerous, and, therefore, do not seek that treatment.
But if we educate ourselves and the public, more people can get the assistance they need, as opposed to this young man, who did slip through the cracks and is now in the situation that he's in.
GWEN IFILL: Brian Stettin, once we have established that someone has some mental challenges, should they be then denied access to guns?
BRIAN STETTIN: You know, that's not an issue that my organization takes a position on, on specifically, and so I'm going to punt on that question, if that's all right.
GWEN IFILL: You're going to punt on that.
(LAUGHTER)
GWEN IFILL: Well, let me ask that to Dr. Lehman.
Do you think so?
DR. ANTHONY LEHMAN: Well, I don't think in a categorical way.
For example, there may be folks who have been treated briefly for anxiety or interpersonal relationship problems. They may have sought help in a mental health setting. In that kind of example, it's not clear that the intent here is to deny folks like that access to guns.
On the other hand, I think for folks who -- where there may be a risk, it needs to be assessed. And I think it does make sense in certain kinds of cases for folks not to have access to guns. But I think it's not as simple a question as one might think. And I'm not an expert on that policy.
GWEN IFILL: OK. Bonnie Sultan, I want to ask you about another thing. It seemed like he was crying for help by use of social media. Is this something that somehow we should have found way to track, to link, to interact, so we knew that all of these things were happening on all these different fronts?
BONNIE SULTAN: I think that it could have been something that someone with the education of mental illness would have been made aware of.
So, example, this is a young man who did try to put himself out there with social media. He was putting messaging out there. He was trying to join the Army. This is someone who was trying to go to school. And nobody really linked together that there was a problem with this young man.
So, certainly, when we're paying attention to social media, and if you're connected to social media and you see these issues happening with someone that you're connected to, this is a great opportunity to learn from this issue and to say, what can I do to help?
We need to start to take responsibility as a society and as a community as to what we can do to help our neighbors, as opposed to just read a Facebook status update or put a link up on YouTube. This is something that we can respond to and take the power back, and assist our neighbors, as opposed to letting them slip through the cracks, as they did in this situation.
GWEN IFILL: Brian Stettin, how do we link all of these different indicators together? At a time of financial stress, Arizona cut six $65 million from its mental health budget in the last -- since 2008. How do you begin to make all those indicators work together?
BRIAN STETTIN: Well, you know, in a time of fiscal restraint, such as we're in now, I think it becomes more important than ever to be smart about the services that we spend money on and make sure that we're not wasting money on services that people are not accessing.
A big part of the work that my organization does is promoting an intervention called assisted outpatient treatment, court-ordered outpatient treatment. And the reason that there is a need for court orders with respect to folks who are in the community and hopefully accessing services is because of something called anosognosia.
A lack of insight in to illness in many folks who have these very severe illnesses causes them not to understand that they're sick, not to believe they're sick, and to not access the services that are put in place.
And so, when you have services in the community that are available for people who are not accessing them, you are essentially wasting money or services that are not being used. And so, by leveraging the power of the court, we do a lot to ensure that the services actually reach the folks who they are intended for.
And I believe that's more important than ever, given what's happening fiscally.
GWEN IFILL: Brian Stettin, Anthony Lehman, and Bonnie Sultan, thank you all very much.
BRIAN STETTIN: Thank you.
BONNIE SULTAN: Thank you.
DR. ANTHONY LEHMAN: Thank you.
-
As I see it over here in the UK, Sarah Palin is somewhat to the right of Attila the Hun. If she is to further her political career she has to appeal to a greater proportion of Americans, i.e. move towards the centre. The testing time is now. Keeping her gob shut over this issue, as she has done so far, isn't an option.
Another thing about Palin, which MooseMom mentioned on the other thread about her, is she calls small town Americans "real" Americans. This to me implies that those of us who live in more urban/suburban areas are not in her "club" so to speak. The USA is made up of many different kinds of people, who live different lifestyles. We do not all fit one "type", so to speak. This does not mean that those of us who don't fit "her" type are not real Americans. We are ALL real Americans. Anyone who implies otherwise does not belong in the face of national politics. Personally, I think her 15 minutes are coming to an end. If not, then God help this nation. Seriously.
KarenInWA
-
Another thing about Palin, which MooseMom mentioned on the other thread about her, is she calls small town Americans "real" Americans. This to me implies that those of us who live in more urban/suburban areas are not in her "club" so to speak. The USA is made up of many different kinds of people, who live different lifestyles. We do not all fit one "type", so to speak. This does not mean that those of us who don't fit "her" type are not real Americans. We are ALL real Americans. Anyone who implies otherwise does not belong in the face of national politics. Personally, I think her 15 minutes are coming to an end. If not, then God help this nation. Seriously.
KarenInWA
It only implies that to you because you hate her. No matter what she says you want to use it out of context to fit your agenda of political rhetoric, that much is very clear.
-
The arizona shooter was a mentally disturbed male but the topic always changes back to Palin...
-
Obama gave a good speech. It made me sad to see the people who lost someone, like Christina Green's mom and brother, and all the rest.
The whole thing is just sad. Sad for the parents of the shooter. What a nightmare for them.
Gaby Gifford's husband told Obama that right after and Michelle left her hospital room, Gaby opened her eyes for the first time.
-
I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention????
-
I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention????
Jean, in AZ it is legal to carry a gun, either open carry or concealed. They have very lax gun laws.
KarenInWA
-
Sad for the parents of the shooter. What a nightmare for them.
I have been wondering if anyone has contacted them to give them their condolences. They've lost a son on so many different levels. I used to think that nothing could be worse for a parent than losing a child, but now I wonder if knowing your child lost his mind and killed so many people is far worse.
I do hope someone called them to offer them some comfort, too. I hope they have not been forgotten.
-
I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention????
Jean, in AZ it is legal to carry a gun, either open carry or concealed. They have very lax gun laws.
KarenInWA
Actually all states have to adhere to the Federal regulations on firearms and AZ is in complete compliance with Federal regulations. Three states allow concealed carry with out a permit for all law abiding citizens, AK, AZ and Vermont. All other states besides Illinois and Wisconsin recognize the right have specific laws and requirements for concealed carry permit holders. Once again, all are in compliance with Federal regulations of firearms.
The sale of firearms is under the Federal system and all people in the entire US must past the Federal NICS review before able to purchase a gun.
In this case, there is compelling evidence that the shooter should never have been allowed to purchase this weapon. Unfortunately, the information stored in the NICS is only as good as is reported to this system. In this case, he slipped through the cracks of both law enforcement and the mental health folks.
If we are going to look anywhere, we had people sitting in class with this man worried that he would go postal at any moment and the first person that some thought of when they heard of the shootings was that he had done it. Many will call for stricter gun laws, but we already have compelling laws that would have prevented the purchase of this weapon if only the information we now know was inputted into the system ahead of time. That is the focus we need to look at. Without fixing that part of the equation, we gain nothing from this tragedy.
-
Agreed, hemodoc. Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.
I am not au fait with gun laws. Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire? I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon? Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want? CAN people have any kind of gun they want?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/obama-arizona-speech-pres_1_n_808315.html#256_support-for-parents-of-shooting-suspect
I am SO glad to see this!!!
-
I didn't know about Arizona's gun law til now, but seeing how lenient it is, I am surprised there weren't more armed folks in the crowd, shooting back. I really think gun laws and restrictions only handcuff law abiding people because bad guys are going to find a way to get weapons, by theft or illegal import. And as we see, the gun registration process cannot gauge the mental stability of someone like the shooter. It's a confusing issue.
-
I didn't know about Arizona's gun law til now, but seeing how lenient it is, I am surprised there weren't more armed folks in the crowd, shooting back. I really think gun laws and restrictions only handcuff law abiding people because bad guys are going to find a way to get weapons, by theft or illegal import. And as we see, the gun registration process cannot gauge the mental stability of someone like the shooter. It's a confusing issue.
Karol, I heard that there actually was one a little ways away and by the time he comprehended what was going on, it was over in about 8 seconds from what I have heard.
As far as the data, Florida is the first state to really open up with what is called shall issue concealed carry weapons permit. Some states have firearms permits only, some have weapons permits to carry knives or other weapons legally by law abiding citizens for personal and family self protection.
Florida saw an immediate decline in crime after giving citizens back their right to self defense. I believe we are around 35 states with shall issue CCW since then and more come on line all the time, both R and D states. Right to guns is by far a broadly supported issue by both sides, as evidenced by Giffords herself who is a gun advocate.
So, responding to a situation like this is a very unusual situation and it is also something that almost always catches even the most prepared people off guard. Even then, when confronted with deadly force against you, the body goes into a mental block from all of the adrenalin and you get what is called muscle memory. People literally shut down thinking and only respond by trained instincts. This is true even with police officers who are the most likely to encounter deadly force against them.
One of my CCW instructors is a old time police officer in Las Vegas who gave his account of a deadly shooting he was in. He chased a suspect who ran into a blind alley. When he realized there was no escape, he turned to the officer with a shiny object in his hand. The LEO remembers nothing more about the event until it was over and the criminal was dead. He had no recollection of how many shots he fired or how many the suspect fired. It is a situation that no one in the right mind would ever desire being part of.
However, there have been many cases where bystanders have intervened and prevented further blood shed. There are actually a fair number of these events that are reported in the news papers across the country. Unfortunately, the criminal black market for guns is probably larger than the legal market. If we take away the guns from the law abiding citizens what shall happen then?
-
Agreed, hemodoc. Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.
I am not au fait with gun laws. Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire? I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon? Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want? CAN people have any kind of gun they want?
People in Idaho literally have what most would consider machine guns as well as silencers. Yet, in CA where we have very restrictive gun laws, where am I the most safe? CA or ID?
Well, after spending almost a year total in Idaho last year with the arrival of our daughter's first child, my wife was almost mugged at walmart not even a mile from our home, the FIRST day back!!
We are getting ready to go back to Idaho gladly in a couple more months. Who are you more afraid of, an armed law abiding citizen or a gang banging creep? It appears that CA has chosen the gang bangers and Idaho has chosen the law abiding citizen. Maybe that is why we hardly saw any gang bangers up there or even in Spokane across the border in WA.
-
Agreed, hemodoc. Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.
I am not au fait with gun laws. Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire? I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon? Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want? CAN people have any kind of gun they want?
The assault weapon ban was a farce put upon the unknowing public. It was a feel good law that had no merits.
If a gun had two of the following it could be called an assault rifle, detachable magazine, pistol grip, folding stock or flash suppressor.
So with that, even ones hunting rifle could fall under that ban.
What was done by the anti constitution crowd and the media was trying to paint these firearms as being machine guns. Usually with the term of calling them automatics of which none of them are. Not only are they not machine guns, but machine guns are actually legal to own and not encompassed by that bill at all which shows the absurdity of the bill.
As to no one noticing he had a gun it had nothing to do with "lax gun laws" People who commit such a crime do not let a law stand in their way. Even if AZ had the most strict law all the individual would need to do is stick the gun down the front of his pants, wear a loose t-shirt not tucked in and most people are not going to notice the gun, especially if their attention is diverted to something else like it was in this case.
-
Hemodoc, but don't you think that CA and Idaho are two very, very different places with very very different populations? And shouldn't local laws reflect that? If I lived in LA, I don't think I'd care too much about what the gun laws were like in someplace like Idaho.
What is your opinion of the new gun laws in Chicago? As you may know, there used to be a handgun ban here, but that was struck down and this was put in its place. What do you think?
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html
-
BigSKy, who exactly is the "anti-constitution crowd"? What does that even mean?
-
BigSKy, who exactly is the "anti-constitution crowd"? What does that even mean?
Those that try to circumvent the Constitution with laws.
-
Hemodoc, but don't you think that CA and Idaho are two very, very different places with very very different populations? And shouldn't local laws reflect that? If I lived in LA, I don't think I'd care too much about what the gun laws were like in someplace like Idaho.
What is your opinion of the new gun laws in Chicago? As you may know, there used to be a handgun ban here, but that was struck down and this was put in its place. What do you think?
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html
Illinois and Wisconsin deny the right of concealed carry period. Isn't the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against your city a statement in itself. I don't remember Chicago as a super safe city the last time I checked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/chicago-gun-violence-cont_n_588530.html
The entire aspect of gun control to reduce homicides by guns is a farce, it only increases the size of "gun free" zones that only emboldens these criminals. If they know, no civilian will have a gun, what will happen, more crime, or less crime?
Washington D.C., Chicago have had horrible problems with gangs. All that the gun ban in these two cities has done is to take away the right to self defense by law abiding citizens, even in their own homes.
The new laws are reprehensibly restrictive as well, even worse than the laws here in CA. The crime in all the states that has adopted shall issue ccw has gone down dramatically. Having essentially machine guns in great numbers in Idaho has not increased the crime rate. People really need to reassess this whole gun control issue.
-
Gosh, I was just asking a question...
I don't really care if any and everybody can have a gun, but if some nutcase who legally has a weapon goes off and kills a bunch of people, let's not get all hypocritically upset about it. Make your choice and live by the consequences because by god, the right for us all to have an arsenal is of utmost importance. I'm tired of hearing about this "tragedy"...it's a common occurrence here in the US and we can't keep spending so much time mourning and gnashing our teeth when children are gunned down. No one cares that much. We cry a bit and then we go out and buy more Glocks because people get scared that their guns will be taken away.
If having a gun makes you so much safer, then why wasn't anyone who was there outside the Safeway in Tucson armed and ready to shoot this guy? He was tackled, not shot. Lax gun laws don't protect anyone, either.
-
re above post, apologies for tone but I just don't have an answer to this situation. I don't know how to keep our children safe. I don't know if more guns or less guns are the answer. I just don't know and it's not my call.
-
Gosh, I was just asking a question...
I don't really care if any and everybody can have a gun, but if some nutcase who legally has a weapon goes off and kills a bunch of people, let's not get all hypocritically upset about it. Make your choice and live by the consequences because by god, the right for us all to have an arsenal is of utmost importance. I'm tired of hearing about this "tragedy"...it's a common occurrence here in the US and we can't keep spending so much time mourning and gnashing our teeth when children are gunned down. No one cares that much. We cry a bit and then we go out and buy more Glocks because people get scared that their guns will be taken away.
If having a gun makes you so much safer, then why wasn't anyone who was there outside the Safeway in Tucson armed and ready to shoot this guy? He was tackled, not shot. Lax gun laws don't protect anyone, either.
If the nut case didn't have a gun, what about his car? There are many examples of people using cars for mass murders as well. The issue of guns in America is a very emotional subject of which I am well aware, but all that the gun laws are accomplishing are keeping guns in certain states and cities away from law abiding citizens. That is at the heart of the McDonald vs Chicago case settled in favor of the plaintiff who had been denied the right to self defense even in his own home.
Gun free zones such as malls, schools and in the case of Chicago as a city have not brought about the safely that they are designed to do. It is not a coincidence that most of these mass killings occur in gun free zones. Europe has very stringent gun ownership, yet per capita they have the same number of mass murders with guns as the US. It is not only America that is trying to deal with a problem where over half of the mass murders are by lunatics or what ever we wish to call them. It is an international problem, one with few good answers.
In Europe, 16 people were killed in a public school shooting in Germany in April 2002. Another two public shootings were the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss Canton (September 2001) and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb in March 2002.
According to John R. Lott Jr., all three of these European killing sprees had one thing in common: They took place in gun-free zones. Firearms surely make it easier to kill people, but firearms also make it easier for people to defend themselves.
Declaring gun-free zones risks leaving potential victims defenseless.
In the U.S., thugs using firearms at elementary or secondary schools between 1997 and 2002 killed 32 students. The total includes gang fights, robberies, accidents and the so-called "school shootings." All these attacks took place in gun-free zones.
In Israel, however, teachers and parents serving as school aids are armed at all times on school grounds with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was adopted in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at schools in Israel have ceased.
Read more: The grave danger of 'gun-free zones' http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55246#ixzz1AxT3XXQB
This information is what has brought about a over 30 states across America in the last two decades to adopt shall issue ccw permits. That is, any law abiding citizen shall be issued a CCW permit if they pass the back ground check including FBI and fingerprint review. Crime in these states that have adopted this policy has gone down.
I would further remind folks that AZ gun laws simply mirror the Federal statutes and don't exceed them. They are in complete compliance with every gun law at the US Federal level which are quite impressive if anyone has taken the time to actually see what a person has to do to qualify and keep and bare arms in the US. I grew up in Alaska and have always enjoyed the outdoors, but with the wild animals in those woods, we always had a rifle and/or pistol in the car with us. It is just a way of life for Alaska citizens as is also shared in many other states as well.
The tragedies of Germany, Paris, Zug and now in Tucson are difficult to prevent even with the strongest gun laws. Paradoxically, gun crimes have been increasing in Europe due to the black market availability of cheap guns, while in America we are having reduced rates. If we were to ban guns in America, would we eliminate all of the guns? Not likely, it would just create a new black market for that here in the US as well.
I fail to see any nation that has solved the issue of mass murders to date and at the same time reduce overall criminal activity as well. Once again, a difficult subject without good answers whether you look at it from the left or the right. We all agree that we want to see these killings end. What is the answer?
-
re above post, apologies for tone but I just don't have an answer to this situation. I don't know how to keep our children safe. I don't know if more guns or less guns are the answer. I just don't know and it's not my call.
No need to apologize MooseMom, it is an emotional issue without a lot of answers from anyone's perspective, left or right.
God bless,
Peter
-
I will admit to not being very educated on what the gun laws are, but, it is my strong belief that anyone who purchases a gun should be required by law to go through and pass a strict training class on how to use them. I will not own a gun because I am not a strong individual, and I feel that the bad guy would just take the gun away from me, kill me with it, then run off and kill others. This happened just a couple of years ago when a mentally ill man stole a gun from his neighbor's living room and randomly killed people, including the deputy who knew him well from many domestic calls to his home. Also, owning a gun is a HUGE responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly. You must make sure your firearm is secured at all times, and cannot get into the hands of others. Failure to do so may cause you to be responsible for any crime that someone may commit with your weapon. The thoughts of what can happen as a result of owning a gun are staggering, and I feel that only those who are competent enough and smart enough to respect their weapon are the only ones who should be able to own them. I'm all for responsible people owning firearms. Is that what is happening across our land?
KarenInWA
-
I thought very seriously about getting a FOID card and then getting a gun to keep here at home. I'm home alone every day while my husband is at work, and once I go on dialysis (and even now), I sometimes feel a bit vulnerable. However...
I guess about 15-20 years ago, there was a very sad thing that happened in my hometown of Houston. A guy from Scotland was visiting his cousin in town, and the two of them had partied and had drunk too much. The Scot started wandering around aimlessly and approached a house in the middle of the night. The house's occupant was of course startled and worried for the safety of his family, so he got out his gun, and after a warning shot that went unheeded, he shot and killed the Scot.
He owned the gun legally, he was on his own property, so he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. The Scot was in the wrong place at the wrong time and on top of everything, he was inebriated. The case did go to trial and the gun owner was declared innocent of any wrongdoing. But it was so sad on so many levels. The Scot's parents were understandably baffled by US gun culture and could not possibly understand how the death of their son was somehow his fault. I remember them standing on the steps of the courthouse with a sign...I don't remember what it said...but it was awful. Real culture clash. But what I remember most was the moment that the homeowner met their eyes as he walked up those steps. Even though he knew that by law he had done nothing illegal, you could tell that he'd be haunted by this for the rest of his life. He was a good man, a responsible man who was just trying to protect his property and his family from what he thought was real danger, but he made a mistake, an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and he became a victim of this sad story, too. He will have to live with this for the rest of his life.
And that's what is making me think twice about having a gun. No matter how responsible a gunowner you are, you can still make a mistake. I don't know how much training people should go through to make them skilled and prepared enough so that they'd never shoot and kill someone in error. So yes, owning a gun is a responsibility, but gosh...if you make a mistake, you won't be able to take it back. That's too much responsibility for me, I think. I just hope that people who do own a gun think really hard about the burden of their responsibility and are not cavalier. But you can't legislate a responsible attitude, I suppose.
-
I thought very seriously about getting a FOID card and then getting a gun to keep here at home. I'm home alone every day while my husband is at work, and once I go on dialysis (and even now), I sometimes feel a bit vulnerable. However...
I guess about 15-20 years ago, there was a very sad thing that happened in my hometown of Houston. A guy from Scotland was visiting his cousin in town, and the two of them had partied and had drunk too much. The Scot started wandering around aimlessly and approached a house in the middle of the night. The house's occupant was of course startled and worried for the safety of his family, so he got out his gun, and after a warning shot that went unheeded, he shot and killed the Scot.
He owned the gun legally, he was on his own property, so he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. The Scot was in the wrong place at the wrong time and on top of everything, he was inebriated. The case did go to trial and the gun owner was declared innocent of any wrongdoing. But it was so sad on so many levels. The Scot's parents were understandably baffled by US gun culture and could not possibly understand how the death of their son was somehow his fault. I remember them standing on the steps of the courthouse with a sign...I don't remember what it said...but it was awful. Real culture clash. But what I remember most was the moment that the homeowner met their eyes as he walked up those steps. Even though he knew that by law he had done nothing illegal, you could tell that he'd be haunted by this for the rest of his life. He was a good man, a responsible man who was just trying to protect his property and his family from what he thought was real danger, but he made a mistake, an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and he became a victim of this sad story, too. He will have to live with this for the rest of his life.
And that's what is making me think twice about having a gun. No matter how responsible a gunowner you are, you can still make a mistake. I don't know how much training people should go through to make them skilled and prepared enough so that they'd never shoot and kill someone in error. So yes, owning a gun is a responsibility, but gosh...if you make a mistake, you won't be able to take it back. That's too much responsibility for me, I think. I just hope that people who do own a gun think really hard about the burden of their responsibility and are not cavalier. But you can't legislate a responsible attitude, I suppose.
The biggest worry is really with kids around the house which we don't have anymore and that is when I started getting most of my guns. Having little kids, you really must have a safe and use it knowing how curious kids are.
When used with proper respect and diligent attention to the rules of safety, it is a safe undertaking. It is when people get careless that things happen.
And yes, tied down to a machine, it is in some ways a prudent thing to have Mr. Ruger to deal with something of that sort especially for people that live in isolated areas. Simply put, a lot of folks won't even here a gun shot in isolated areas or just assume someone is hunting.
We take the steps to make it difficult for folks to get into the house as the starting point. I did that in part because of the number of smash and grab robberies by teenage kids. I remember how dumb I was as a teenager and that is not the situation I would want to have to use a gun. Better to keep them out in the first place.
Just as with driving a car, paying attention to the safety rules is mandatory. If you did actually go that route, make sure you get good training to feel comfortable with the process.
Getting back to the AZ shooter, my opinion is that the bang for the buck is figuring out how to get someone like this kid who did come to the attention of the school, apparently a committee profiling kids that may be at risk as the VA tech incident. But removing them from the school did nothing to protect those that were unaware of the signs of danger noted in the school. Somehow, the privacy issues must be overcome to get these people help and prevent these tragedies. That is probably the most profitable approach. The gun owners of America cringe every time an event happens because we know what is coming next. Yet, with the VA tech and this episode, there were possible places for intervention.
Having committees to look out for the behaviors that are worrisome may be only half the equation. Actually doing something with the information at hand is the next step to complete the circle that should be passed on to the police or some other commission with notification of the FBI central files. I think that connecting the dots is a very real possibility and I hope folks will follow through on some sort of recommendation to this effect.
This would be in accordance with mandatory sexual abuse and child abuse reporting standards we already have. There is a risk of infringement of individual liberties, but if done in a responsible manner, we already have a lot of the system in place.
-
Interesting commentary on AZ liberal laws on involuntary in-patient treatment for mentally ill patients. He believes that the shooting could have been prevented by this progressive AZ law already on the books since 2004 and unchallenged constitutionally. Truly, missed opportunity is the word of the day.
Before Tucson rampage, a powerful law went unused
By Andrew Longstreth
NEW YORK | Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:56pm EST
Jan 13 (Reuters Legal) - As evidence mounts that Jared Lee Loughner exhibited disturbing behavior months before the rampage in Tucson, it's increasingly clear that Arizona authorities could legally have detained him for psychiatric evaluation and treatment -- and potentially have been able to avert the tragedy. But officials in other states might not have had that power, a review of state laws on involuntary commitment suggests.
Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C6JQ20110113
All the laws necessary to prevent this tragedy are already in place if only they had been followed. I am interested to see what sort of post hoc analysis of the actions of the Community College committee that released him from their school will find. I wouldn't want to be a member of that committee right now given the fact that AZ has one of the most liberal laws on involuntary mental health treatment. It looks like the committee had the legal authority to go further than simple notification to the person involved and his parents. If they went so far as to notify the parents which legally is a privacy issue since he is of age, then under the AZ it appears they could have also notified the appropriate authorities.
Quite a sad turn of events for all involved.
Perhaps the AZ law should be used as the model to combat this problem of severe mentally ill folks performing more than half of our mass murders. This law could have likewise prevented the VA tech killings as well. Both these kids were known to have serious problems that did not come to the attention of the FBI data base. That is a problem. That is an issue that can be fixed.