Shooting in Colorado at Batman Screening

Parent Cafe
81

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, this is not true. As missypie and MOWC commented, it is extraordinarily difficult to get help for an adult (or even to prevent another adult from doing harm to others) if that other adult is uncooperative. What EXACTLY were his parents supposed to do? How can you possibly predict who is truly a danger to others?</p>

<p>When something terrible happens, it’s human nature to try to “fix” things or to prevent similar things from occuring again. In reality, fixes are rarely so simple as “improve mental health care” or “improve gun control”…</p>

82

<p>^ More excuses from Gladglad dad… and the more we make these excuses the less likely it is that anything will ever change. And the next time it does there will simply be another thread and days and days of media coverage expressing shock and offering prayers for the victims and their families. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.</p>

83

<p>“Focusing on the ‘tool’, i.e. the gun in this case, is a misdirection that will have no gain. The focus should be on what drove this individual and others like him to commit this act and whether there’s a feasible way to detect the conditions that are the root case and whether there’s a feasible way to do something about it. It’s a very complex issue.”</p>

<p>Why can’t we do both? I agree bad people will always find a way but let’s make it a little more difficult. I understand we will never fully ban guns but there are many sensible things we can do like the automatic weapons with a lot capacity that may have been used here to shoot 70+ people in a few minutes.</p>

84

<p>Nrdsb4, the poster may be fantasizing a Judge Dredd scenario…which is what my husband called me this morning (Judge Dredd) when in my shock I ranted about legitimate causes for instant incineration and how all weapons should have a dna screen whereby they will not deploy if a person is identified as patently insane :wink: (In case you’re unfamiliar with Judge Dredd comics, same is law/judge/executioner whose weapon is chained to him via DNA recognition…)</p>

<p>Fantasy aside, we can SAY we won’t tolerate it, but if the causation is one part biologic, one part societal and multiple parts influences such as “freedom of mobility/speech/media consumption/freedom to pursue economic supremacy/freedom to own firearms” etc., I wonder how many people would be willing to adhere to what it would take to prevent psychotic breakdowns in society or at least neutralize access to the “weapons” of “mass murder?” Eg. what if it turned out we had to dial-down to an agrarian, non-technological society? How many would be up for that?</p>

<p>Eg. A gang-violence expert in Dallas wrote an entire book based on his research that showed double-income family kids who were affluent were more likely to participate in gang violence (moreso than economically challenged or single parented children whereby the emphasis of the work was survival.) If this research bore out, would it be reasonable to mandate two parent families with one parent at home?</p>

<p>Eg. How many people in this society would entrust the “system” to mandate medication or shock therapy for schizophrenics? I covered numerous stories back in my journalism days about murderers who were off their meds. One killed a cop. Another killed his father, a doc who also happened to be his prescriber. (These cases were in Canada, where I lived then.) Of course, MH organizations are quick to say schizophrenia does not mean violence, but my direct experience both in my own family and in courtrooms would suggest there are a percentage for whom there is this proclivity. My step sister was sterilized under institutional care during the bad ole 70s, and you wanna believe that practice has since been decried. Mandated medication is another hot potato. Who gets to define baseline normal? Who can be trusted? </p>

<p>Freedom is our wilderness, as the saying goes. We love it, but it is a messy messy affair to uniformly protect it!</p>

<p>I know a lot of highly intelligent libertarian types who in terms of profiling might be just one shade away from “appearing” to be the types given to mass murder – but who despite mild misanthropy would never hurt a soul. Neuroscience shows that the differentiation between the structural configuration of a psychotic’s brain (dominant cortex, etc.) is rather similar to that of other exceptional types, eg. genius level IQ.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, we have to choose humanity every time, whether others do or don’t. That’s the rub. Otherwise, hello Neitzche.</p>

85

<p>

</p>

<p>You do realize that if guns were harder to obtain (for whatever reason), then the percentage of people killed using other weapons would likely increase, right?</p>

86

<p>P.S. I’m not saying “do nothing, them’s the breaks.” I’m just saying “it’s complicated, and would we be willing to do what it takes?”</p>

<p>Intelligent gun control <em>might</em> help to a degree, but don’t forget the Montreal Massacre, one of the first mass murders, which was committed in a country with very highly regulated gun access. (Canadians actually have MORE guns per capita than the US. They’re just more highly regulated and there just aren’t as many semi-automatics laying about. It’s pretty hard to kill 12 people with a shotgun! That doesn’t stop em from trying!) Some kind of social safety net for the mentally ill, or a judicial system more inclined to BALANCE our freedoms and the need to protect us (eg balance individual and collective rights) might help.</p>

<p>But it could also be biologically determined as a species that the way we live now or the substances we ingest in our food or the emf or pollution or pharma coupled with breakdown of socializing forums such as education and family, plus the medical breakthroughs and the babies we save mean that every so often, statistically, genetically, we produce an outlier who goes off on the pack – elements combine in a perfect storm of treachery and the rest of us are left wondering what we can do.</p>

87

<p>I’m actually all for more strict gun control-but not because I believe it will reduce instances of mass murder such as has occurred in the Colorado case. I think more strict gun control will decrease the “usual” type of murder. The murder which occurs in a rage after an argument following a night of drinking, the death which occurs when a young child finds the family gun, etc.</p>

<p>People who want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time will find whatever means they can to do so. If they can’t get a gun, they’ll lie in wait for them in their car at the parade or on the college campus after a football game and mow them down, they will build their bombs, etc. Mass murders are a rare event-these people are particularly determined and reducing their access to guns in my opinion, will not affect their rate of occurrence one iota. Someone like that will just think of a different plan.</p>

<p>The everyday deaths which result from easy access to guns? Yes, I think those could be reduced significantly with gun control.</p>

88

<p>“You do realize that if guns were harder to obtain (for whatever reason), then the percentage of people killed using other weapons would likely increase, right?”</p>

<p>No, I won’t concede to that at all. Other methods are much more difficult to obtain or devise then buying and amassing a bunch of guns and going and shooting a bunch of innocent people. </p>

<p>Do you honestly believe that there would be as many violent deaths as we have (and not just those from a mass shooting) if we banned guns?</p>

89

<p>Let’s not get on the blame-the-parents bandwagon. We know nothing about this family. The only thing I’m willing to speculate is the fact that the shooter’s parents are probably now just reeling. Devastated. In absolute horrified shock. The rest of their lives are ruined. I say, add two more people to the victims list. </p>

<p>BTW, I remember when everyone was saying that there HAD to be something WRONG with the families of the Columbine shooters. Well guess what. The parents were happily married, involved, and caring. They did everything “right” for their children. Mental illness isn’t easy to diagnose or treat. Getting guns and ammunition is. As long as these two factors remain in play, these shocking events will happen and happen and happen again.</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s probably futile to try to implement real gun control since there are so many guns in circulation in this country, but to believe that ready access to guns is not a problem here in the US - is, I think, delusional. All these factors mentioned including just the stress of our society lead this to this happening much more often here than in other countries. These big splash events - while horribly tragic - are responsible for only a tiny fraction of the murders that happen. I personally think guns should be much less prevalent than they are, and believe if they were, a lot of crimes would be injuries rather than deaths if they happened at all. Have pretty much given up on it happening though.</p>

91

<p>Way, way too soon to know much about the perpetrator’s mental status, other than that he was likely unbalanced. </p>

<p>I’m also very, very sorry for his family. Even if family members know that an adult family member has psychiatric issues, it is very, very hard in today’s “mentally ill people must be given freedom and personal control” environment to get people the help they need or protect them from others until they’ve already hurt people. I’ve no desire to return to mental health warehouses, but having seen in my own larger family how it is virtually impossible to get sustained treatment for a family member with psychosis who had been hospitalized many, many times for short durations, I am more convinced than ever that our current approach is completely and thoroughly broken. </p>

<p>IMO, doctors who treat patients for a number of different psychiatric disorders should be required to put those patients names on the federal firearms list to prevent them from purchasing weapons. I see no rational reason to allow someone with schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder to own a gun at any time.</p>

92

<p>When someone is driven to kill, he/she can use anything as the tool/method–knives, fire, gas, bomb, chemicals, robes, bare hands, a car, etc. </p>

<p>When police took him into custody, his hair was colored bright red and he said that he was the Joker (Batman Character). Some sort of mental breakdown must have been the cause of him going from graduating with highest honors in neuroscience to proclaiming he’s the Joker and shooting/killing random people in a movie theater while a Batman movie plays in the background.</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean we should make it easy for them. When a patient goes to the doctor repeatedly complaining of pain, looking for oxy, the doctor asks questions to determine if there is an addiction.
As things stand right now, just about anyone can get a gun legally. Remember Virginia Tech? The gunman there had a long and colorful psychiatric history and, yet, he was able to get a gun. Even semi automatic weapons can be had easily. If a madman walks into a crowd with a pistol or a knife, is he going to be able to do as much damage as he could with a semi automatic weapon? What could possible justify this kind of weapon being available to the average person?
Nrdsb4 makes a very good point, as well.

</p>

<p>I agree with this one hundred percent. How many of us have been in volatile situations in which an argument has escalated to a frenzy? What if a gun was readily available? Is it possible that we could have ended up in the headlines if that had been the case? Out of control teens, drunk fathers, crazy boyfriends…You add a gun to that mix and you can write a different ending to a lot of stories.</p>

94

<p>^I thought it was reported that he just drop out of the PHD program recently.</p>

95

<p>He graduated with his undergrad in neuroscience and was enrolled until recently in a grad program.</p>

96

<p>CNN is reporting that he purchased 4 guns in the last 6 months “legally” from Bass Pro Shops and Gander Mountain. Even if someone does not have a criminal record, you would think purchasing 4 different weapons like that in a short period of time would set off a red flag.</p>

97

<p>While I think that fully and semi-automatic weapons create opportunity, the US has experienced “other methods” of actual and attempted mass murder. Here is what I quickly found concerning Mass killings/attempts by Bomb at SCHOOLS</p>

<p>Poe Elementary (6 dead)
Bath School (38 kids, 6 adults and the bomber all dead)
Cokeville Elementary (79 burned or injured)
Columbine --1 pipe bomb exploded, butane bombs and othe pipe bombs failed to explode
Hillsdale -2 pipe bombs exploded, no one injured
Sterling Hall (1 teacher dead, 3 injured)
2005 University of Oklahoma–TATP bomb within 200 yards of 84,501 attendees of football game, bomber killed</p>

98

<p>Sevmom,
If I remember correctly (and I may not be) the same was true of the Virginia Tech shooter. At the time there was a lot of talk about the lack of pattern recognition in these purchases and the need for a data base that allows for tracking of weapons bought by the same individual in a short period of time.</p>

99

<p>Uugghhhhh…this is so overwhelmingly sad beyond belief. These poor people.</p>

100

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure I see the point. Would stricter gun laws have prevented these killings? I guess not but they may prevent some gun related murders. Will stricter gun laws just force potential criminals to find another way to inflict harm on unsuspecting innocents? Maybe. Maybe not. We can’t use crimes that were never committed or never will be as evidence to support our viewpoint.</p>