Father of Oregon killer blames GUNS, not son, for massacre?

[ChrisL]

Joe, you know I'm not a wingnut, so shut the fuck up. Do you know how he obtained the weapons?

some he bought and some his mommy bought for him.

Just because you are sensible (or excercising self-interest) on other issues doesn't make you less of a nut on this one.

Here's the thing. Mercer never, ever, ever should have been allowed to own a gun, given his clear history of mental problems, including being treated for them most of his childhood, being thrown out of the Army after a few weeks for mental problems, or referring to himself as Lithium Love on the internet. This was a guy who clearly should not have had access to guns.

But he was able to get them.

If a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then they should be in jail, or locked in a mental facility if mentally ill.

Isn't that what the USSR used to do? You know, throw dissidents into mental hospitals?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that we should be able to declare someone mentally ill and deprive them of their right to free speech or due process of law?

Or do you just think this is a loophole to deny them second Amendment rights AFTER they've shot up a bunch of people, and say, "Damn, that guy was crazy. I had no idea he could get a gun!"

If he was locked in a secure mental facility, he would have NEVER been able to get a weapon, nor would he have been able to harm anyone in any way.

 

[ChrisL]

Joe, you know I'm not a wingnut, so shut the fuck up. Do you know how he obtained the weapons?

some he bought and some his mommy bought for him.

Just because you are sensible (or excercising self-interest) on other issues doesn't make you less of a nut on this one.

Here's the thing. Mercer never, ever, ever should have been allowed to own a gun, given his clear history of mental problems, including being treated for them most of his childhood, being thrown out of the Army after a few weeks for mental problems, or referring to himself as Lithium Love on the internet. This was a guy who clearly should not have had access to guns.

But he was able to get them.

If a person cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then they should be in jail, or locked in a mental facility if mentally ill.

Isn't that what the USSR used to do? You know, throw dissidents into mental hospitals?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that we should be able to declare someone mentally ill and deprive them of their right to free speech or due process of law?

Or do you just think this is a loophole to deny them second Amendment rights AFTER they've shot up a bunch of people, and say, "Damn, that guy was crazy. I had no idea he could get a gun!"

Nope, sorry Joe, the rest of the people of America should not have to pay for the actions of a few lunatics who obviously need to be locked up. I know because I type about these people every single day. I know what goes on in our mental facilities, and it isn't good. They load them with meds and send them along their way. That's it.

 

[JoeB131]

If he was locked in a secure mental facility, he would have NEVER been able to get a weapon, nor would he have been able to harm anyone in any way.

So what you are saying is you are willing to lock people away for what they MIGHT do, but you aren't willing to deny them access to firearms because of what they MIGHT do.

That seems a little ass-backwards, don't you think?

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, sorry Joe, the rest of the people of America should not have to pay for the actions of a few lunatics who obviously need to be locked up. I know because I type about these people every single day. I know what goes on in our mental facilities, and it isn't good. They load them with meds and send them along their way. That's it.

except up to the point they went on a shooting rampage (Cho/Mercer/Lanza/Holmes/Roof/Loughner) had done nothing to justify locking them up.

And the thing is, if they stay on their medications, some of them CAN function.

18% of the American population suffers from some kind of mental illness. Are you going to lock them all up? Or just the ones you think might be dangerous?

 

[ChrisL]

If he was locked in a secure mental facility, he would have NEVER been able to get a weapon, nor would he have been able to harm anyone in any way.

So what you are saying is you are willing to lock people away for what they MIGHT do, but you aren't willing to deny them access to firearms because of what they MIGHT do.

That seems a little ass-backwards, don't you think?

If a person is mentally disabled and cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then yes, they should be locked up as a danger to society. Just because you don't let them get a hold of a gun doesn't mean they wouldn't still kill people. They would find another way to do it. They are NOT sane.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope, sorry Joe, the rest of the people of America should not have to pay for the actions of a few lunatics who obviously need to be locked up. I know because I type about these people every single day. I know what goes on in our mental facilities, and it isn't good. They load them with meds and send them along their way. That's it.

except up to the point they went on a shooting rampage (Cho/Mercer/Lanza/Holmes/Roof/Loughner) had done nothing to justify locking them up.

And the thing is, if they stay on their medications, some of them CAN function.

18% of the American population suffers from some kind of mental illness. Are you going to lock them all up? Or just the ones you think might be dangerous?

The problem is, a lot of them feel better and then stop taking their medications. I believe that is also a part of the mental illness. It might sound "mean" to you, but there are a whole LOT of people who should not be walking around out in society. They are extremely dangerous.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope, sorry Joe, the rest of the people of America should not have to pay for the actions of a few lunatics who obviously need to be locked up. I know because I type about these people every single day. I know what goes on in our mental facilities, and it isn't good. They load them with meds and send them along their way. That's it.

except up to the point they went on a shooting rampage (Cho/Mercer/Lanza/Holmes/Roof/Loughner) had done nothing to justify locking them up.

And the thing is, if they stay on their medications, some of them CAN function.

18% of the American population suffers from some kind of mental illness. Are you going to lock them all up? Or just the ones you think might be dangerous?

Let me tell you something, Joe. I type about the same patients over and over again. They come in and out of the mental health facility. They are stabilized on their meds, sent on their way and a couple of weeks/months later, they are back because they stopped taking their meds and deteriorated. Now, is it better, for their safety and ours, to keep them in a locked mental institution? Or to trust them to take their medications?

 

[ChrisL]

I cannot tell you how shocked I was when I first started my job to find that there were mentally ill people who would hear "voices" telling them to kill their mother, their wife, their children, or whomever, sometimes just random people. Some of them think that people are out to hurt them, so they see their violence as actually a "self defense." These people will be loaded with meds, levels checked, and then sent on their way. Not much therapy involved here either.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem is, a lot of them feel better and then stop taking their medications. I believe that is also a part of the mental illness. It might sound "mean" to you, but there are a whole LOT of people who should not be walking around out in society. They are extremely dangerous.

I agree. They are. And they shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

I just don't see how you are going to lock up 42 million Americans with a mental illness, though.

Probably just easier to make it harder for them to get guns.

If a person is mentally disabled and cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then yes, they should be locked up as a danger to society. Just because you don't let them get a hold of a gun doesn't mean they wouldn't still kill people. They would find another way to do it. They are NOT sane.

I agree, they aren't. And they shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Locking them up is kind of impractical, though. What's your criteria for locking someone up?

Clearly, no one thought Mercer needed to be locked up before he went on his rampage.

No one thought Vester Flannagan needed to be locked up before he went on his rampage. Hell, they even put that guy on TV.

18% of the population struggles with some mental illness. SPend a few hours on USMB and you can definitely tell that number is about right.

We can't lock them all up. We can tighten who can legally buy and own guns and ammo.

Other countries have done this, which is why you don't hear about the Japanese guy who shoots up his college class because they didn't like his anime porn fan fic.

 

[ChrisL]

The problem is, a lot of them feel better and then stop taking their medications. I believe that is also a part of the mental illness. It might sound "mean" to you, but there are a whole LOT of people who should not be walking around out in society. They are extremely dangerous.

I agree. They are. And they shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

I just don't see how you are going to lock up 42 million Americans with a mental illness, though.

Probably just easier to make it harder for them to get guns.

If a person is mentally disabled and cannot be trusted with his or her rights, then yes, they should be locked up as a danger to society. Just because you don't let them get a hold of a gun doesn't mean they wouldn't still kill people. They would find another way to do it. They are NOT sane.

I agree, they aren't. And they shouldn't be allowed to have guns.

Locking them up is kind of impractical, though. What's your criteria for locking someone up?

Clearly, no one thought Mercer needed to be locked up before he went on his rampage.

No one thought Vester Flannagan needed to be locked up before he went on his rampage. Hell, they even put that guy on TV.

18% of the population struggles with some mental illness. SPend a few hours on USMB and you can definitely tell that number is about right.

We can't lock them all up. We can tighten who can legally buy and own guns and ammo.

Other countries have done this, which is why you don't hear about the Japanese guy who shoots up his college class because they didn't like his anime porn fan fic.

Of course, there are different levels of mental illness. Some people with mental illness are NOT harmful at all. There are those who hear voices and are paranoid, that should be locked up and they are NOT locked up. They are given medications and sent on their way, Joe!!!

 

[JoeB131]

I cannot tell you how shocked I was when I first started my job to find that there were mentally ill people who would hear "voices" telling them to kill their mother, their wife, their children, or whomever, sometimes just random people. Some of them think that people are out to hurt them, so they see their violence as actually a "self defense." These people will be loaded with meds, levels checked, and then sent on their way. Not much therapy involved here either.

I'll go you one better. I worked with a guy who was a little odd. it was clear he was schizo and after a certain point, his meds weren't working. He'd scare the shit out of the ladies working on the assembly line, with his actions including making odd staring motions towards the light fixtures to doing outright rants.

Oh, yeah, this guys jobs was to test components that were put into surgical devices.

Yet the company was afraid to fire him because they'd get hit with an ADA complaint. So he wandered around the plant for months until they finally built up enough paper to fire him.

(This is the same company that fired a co-worker after she showed up at a party with her same-sex partner. talk about fucked up priorities.)

A country that has 43 million people with mental illness should not be handing out guns like they are door prizes. We can't detect and lock them all up.

I'm just glad they finally fired this guy before he got a gun and went on a rampage. We all made jokes about him doing it.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, there are different levels of mental illness. Some people with mental illness are NOT harmful at all. There are those who hear voices and are paranoid, that should be locked up and they are NOT locked up. They are given medications and sent on their way, Joe!!!

Actually, the vast majority of gun deaths are not due to the crazy person ranting at the moon. They kill maybe 100 people a year.

The vast majority are the 19,000 suicides who suffer from what you'd consider a "non-harmful" mental disease. - depression, etc.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course, there are different levels of mental illness. Some people with mental illness are NOT harmful at all. There are those who hear voices and are paranoid, that should be locked up and they are NOT locked up. They are given medications and sent on their way, Joe!!!

Actually, the vast majority of gun deaths are not due to the crazy person ranting at the moon. They kill maybe 100 people a year.

The vast majority are the 19,000 suicides who suffer from what you'd consider a "non-harmful" mental disease. - depression, etc.

Suicide is not homicide. Yes, a lot of people who suffer from depression will commit suicide. That is another symptom of our poor mental health system.

You know that a very dangerous person can only be held for 72 hours legally if they are "stabilized"? Oh sure, they are stable, temporarily, until they do drugs or drink, stop taking their meds, or something happens that they feel might be a "threat" to them. I type reports where the psychiatrists will state the patient even made them nervous and would not be alone in a room with this patient, or they have to even restrain patients. In those cases, they give the patients injectable meds because that is the only way to get the meds into their systems. Then they are considered "stabilized" and sent on their way.

 

[JoeB131]

Suicide is not homicide. Yes, a lot of people who suffer from depression will commit suicide. That is another symptom of our poor mental health system.

You know that a very dangerous person can only be held for 72 hours legally if they are "stabilized"? Oh sure, they are stable, temporarily, until they do drugs or drink, stop taking their meds, or something happens that they feel might be a "threat" to them. I type reports where the psychiatrists will state the patient even made them nervous and would not be alone in a room with this patient, or they have to even restrain patients. In those cases, they give the patients injectable meds because that is the only way to get the meds into their systems. Then they are considered "stabilized" and sent on their way.

Yes, you are going to get no argument from me, the state of America's mental health system is in shambles, due to a combination of liberal do-gooderism, and conservative neglect and lack of funding.

The thing is, the people you describe aren't going to have the resources to plunk down $500.00 to buy guns and ammo.

It's the ones like Mercer and Cho who were clearly crazy enough to be a concern, but were still able to go to school and work and live in an apartment until that one day they snapped and settled scores with the voices in their heads.

 

[ChrisL]

Suicide is not homicide. Yes, a lot of people who suffer from depression will commit suicide. That is another symptom of our poor mental health system.

You know that a very dangerous person can only be held for 72 hours legally if they are "stabilized"? Oh sure, they are stable, temporarily, until they do drugs or drink, stop taking their meds, or something happens that they feel might be a "threat" to them. I type reports where the psychiatrists will state the patient even made them nervous and would not be alone in a room with this patient, or they have to even restrain patients. In those cases, they give the patients injectable meds because that is the only way to get the meds into their systems. Then they are considered "stabilized" and sent on their way.

Yes, you are going to get no argument from me, the state of America's mental health system is in shambles, due to a combination of liberal do-gooderism, and conservative neglect and lack of funding.

The thing is, the people you describe aren't going to have the resources to plunk down $500.00 to buy guns and ammo.

It's the ones like Mercer and Cho who were clearly crazy enough to be a concern, but were still able to go to school and work and live in an apartment until that one day they snapped and settled scores with the voices in their heads.

Do you think these people would NOT be able to obtain a weapon illegally?

 

[ChrisL]

They can make bombs, they can run people over with their cars, they can obtain weapons illegally.

 

[ChrisL]

The problem isn't the "TOOL", it is the person wielding it.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you think these people would NOT be able to obtain a weapon illegally?

Yes. I think that if we change the gun Culture in this country, these people would not be able to get guns.

Because there are just as many crazy people in Britain, France, Germany and probably MORE per capita in Japan. And guess what, they never have incidents like this.

They can make bombs, they can run people over with their cars, they can obtain weapons illegally.

But they aren't doing any of those things in the countries I mentioned, and they aren't doing it in this country. in this country, they are buying guns.

Sweet Evil Jesus, you guys can take a very simple proposition, and make it complicated.

If you don't let anyone have a gun who wants one, crazy people can't get guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you think these people would NOT be able to obtain a weapon illegally?

Yes. I think that if we change the gun Culture in this country, these people would not be able to get guns.

Because there are just as many crazy people in Britain, France, Germany and probably MORE per capita in Japan. And guess what, they never have incidents like this.

They can make bombs, they can run people over with their cars, they can obtain weapons illegally.

But they aren't doing any of those things in the countries I mentioned, and they aren't doing it in this country. in this country, they are buying guns.

Sweet Evil Jesus, you guys can take a very simple proposition, and make it complicated.

If you don't let anyone have a gun who wants one, crazy people can't get guns.

And the criminals would applaud.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think these people would NOT be able to obtain a weapon illegally?

Yes. I think that if we change the gun Culture in this country, these people would not be able to get guns.

Because there are just as many crazy people in Britain, France, Germany and probably MORE per capita in Japan. And guess what, they never have incidents like this.

They can make bombs, they can run people over with their cars, they can obtain weapons illegally.

But they aren't doing any of those things in the countries I mentioned, and they aren't doing it in this country. in this country, they are buying guns.

Sweet Evil Jesus, you guys can take a very simple proposition, and make it complicated.

If you don't let anyone have a gun who wants one, crazy people can't get guns.

Joe, try to be realistic sometimes.