Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

ScienceChic wrote: ZHawke, I will concede your point on the use of the term "exactly"; I should've said similarly.

SC, sorry if my post was a little confrontational. It certainly wasn't intended to be. I guess I'm getting a little bit testy in my dotage on these types of issues.

ScienceChic wrote: No, we don't have many facts here - why was he forcibly committed? Is the fact that he was forcibly committed better or worse as a reason for removing the guns from the home? What is the storage situation? Could she change the lock code on a safe so he couldn't access them, or is that impossible?

All these questions factor into making decisions in cases like these, and more. They need to be determined on a case by case basis. That's why to simply state the woman should be able to have her guns and suffer the consequences of her actions after the fact, so to speak, doesn't resonate with me. We've pretty much been doing that in the past, and it hasn't worked. Plus, the pro-gun advocates come out of the woodwork in condemnation of the "crazies" almost every single time, after the fact. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

The fact the husband was forcibly committed indicates/implies a mental condition in which he probably should not be around guns, even if he is getting ongoing treatment/therapy, stored or not, in a locked safe or not. I point to my own life experience as just one example of how a very determined individual will figure out how to access a lethal weapon to do what they intend to do (suicide of first wife with a gun).

As a point of speculation here, let's just say this woman actually owns those guns (it wasn't specifically stated that she did.....rather, it was implied from my own interpretation of the story). Plus, because they are husband and wife, unless there's some kind of invisible wall of ownership that would preclude her allowing him access to those guns if they're stored "safely" in a locked gun safe, the argument that she can, or even would, prevent access to those lethal weapons is in question.

If she owns the guns, then one would think that she, as a responsible gun owner (which it could be argued she is not simply by virtue of the fact she wants to put lethal weapons into an environment in which mental illness is present which is, in turn, one of the "red flags" we've all wrung our hands over after one of those people some label as "crazies" commits their mayhem), would want to keep those lethal weapons in a place where the mentally ill person, her husband in this case, absolutely could not get access to them. That would necessarily preclude them from even being in the home we're talking about.

ScienceChic wrote: What I was hoping to do was to stimulate a discussion on these various scenarios. At what point does the state cross the line of being proactive in protecting its citizens to being abusive in trampling its citizens' rights in the name of "community safety"? If the people in Holmes' life had alerted authorities, would they have investigated more closely, and caught him before he murdered a dozen people and wounded over 70 more?

A fine line, to be sure. I'd argue that it all depends on one's own personal views toward "government" in general as to your posit. I won't say the perp's name in the Aurora theater shooting, but I will say that the people in that monster's life are not to blame, just as the people in the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and so many others are not to blame. The blame lies solely with, and staunchly on the shoulders of the perps, themselves. I will say, however, that awareness can, and sometimes does, play a significant role in helping prevent these kinds of travesties. The problem is, IMHO, the stigma attached to mental illness. The "if only" questions after the fact are just that if we do nothing to address the stigma associated with this pervasive illness, and they always will be....as we've been seeing time and time again. Perhaps if we, as a society, did not encourage and perpetuate our own misconceptions and perceptions regarding this illness, perhaps if we as individuals chose to learn more about what we could do to help rather than condemn or make fun of people suffering from this malady, perhaps then more people would be willing to come forward actually seeking the help they so badly need. Again, speaking from my own life experience in this area, my first wife was absolutely petrified of what others might think of her if they found out she was suffering from her diagnosed mental illness. Her's was pervasive, her's was insidious, her's was debilitating in the extreme. And yet, no one outside of a very few select family and friends knew of her affliction to the extent she was suffering from it. They knew something was amiss, but they had no idea the extent of her illness. Sorry....rambling here.

ScienceChic wrote: On that line of thought, has anyone seen Minority Report? Yes, it's sci-fi and not reality-based at all, but what about the notion of stopping crimes before they begin? False accusations are so easy to start, and much harder to stop; power corrupts and governments tend toward building more and more power over time to the point of abusing their constituents - how do citizens police that or what is acceptable collateral damage in the name of "that's life"?

Removing the stigma, somehow, that is associated with mental illness in general would go a long way toward answering your questions here, SC. I believe "more guns" isn't the answer. I also believe "more gun control" isn't the answer, either. It's going to take much more than either of those conditions can be reasonably expected to provide.

My two cents.

By way of further explanation, there's the story of the most recent travesty (not a mass shooting by definition, but a travesty none the less):

Killer’s ultimate selfie: Roanoke horror becoming the new norm

Evil acts rarely have a single explanation, and this one’s no different. Again, a gun is involved. Again, it’s an angry, unsuccessful man. Again, he sent a rambling manifesto to a news media organization. It was a compendium of grievances: racial discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying by co-workers, family alienation. He expressed admiration for the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters.

"Evil acts rarely have a single explanation". That....that right there, pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned. And unless we're willing to work with that, we're going to be doomed to history repeating itself, especially, as the author of this article implies, as technology keeps making the advances that it is.

And one more on "media coverage":

How the media should cover murderers

An interview with Dave Cullen (author of "Columbine") is always interesting for me. This is one time he kind of, sort of "went off" on the media.

Here's another OpEd on the complexities associated with these types of travesties:

American exceptionalism and the ‘exceptionally American’ problem of mass shootings

Societal "norms" do appear to be a factor, although some will most certainly argue people like the monster in this most recent shooting should just grow the f**k up, get a life, and accept their lot in that life. Personally, I don't see it that way, but I know some do.

WDBJ Shooter Had History of Violent Outbursts

This piece goes to the very heart of our discussion here, IMHO.

An initial check of legal records reveals no criminal history that would have prohibited Flanagan from buying or possessing a gun. A pattern of mental illness would not have disqualified him from purchasing a firearm through a licensed dealer unless he had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a judge or “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

And:

Other studies have explored the role of firearms in workplace violence, with the Bureau of Justice Statistics finding that shootings accounted for 80 percent of workplace homicides between 2005 and 2009.

ZHawke wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: ZHawke, I will concede your point on the use of the term "exactly"; I should've said similarly.

SC, sorry if my post was a little confrontational. It certainly wasn't intended to be. I guess I'm getting a little bit testy in my dotage on these types of issues.

ScienceChic wrote: No, we don't have many facts here - why was he forcibly committed? Is the fact that he was forcibly committed better or worse as a reason for removing the guns from the home? What is the storage situation? Could she change the lock code on a safe so he couldn't access them, or is that impossible?

All these questions factor into making decisions in cases like these, and more. They need to be determined on a case by case basis. That's why to simply state the woman should be able to have her guns and suffer the consequences of her actions after the fact, so to speak, doesn't resonate with me. We've pretty much been doing that in the past, and it hasn't worked. Plus, the pro-gun advocates come out of the woodwork in condemnation of the "crazies" almost every single time, after the fact. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

The fact the husband was forcibly committed indicates/implies a mental condition in which he probably should not be around guns, even if he is getting ongoing treatment/therapy, stored or not, in a locked safe or not. I point to my own life experience as just one example of how a very determined individual will figure out how to access a lethal weapon to do what they intend to do (suicide of first wife with a gun).

As a point of speculation here, let's just say this woman actually owns those guns (it wasn't specifically stated that she did.....rather, it was implied from my own interpretation of the story). Plus, because they are husband and wife, unless there's some kind of invisible wall of ownership that would preclude her allowing him access to those guns if they're stored "safely" in a locked gun safe, the argument that she can, or even would, prevent access to those lethal weapons is in question.

If she owns the guns, then one would think that she, as a responsible gun owner (which it could be argued she is not simply by virtue of the fact she wants to put lethal weapons into an environment in which mental illness is present which is, in turn, one of the "red flags" we've all wrung our hands over after one of those people some label as "crazies" commits their mayhem), would want to keep those lethal weapons in a place where the mentally ill person, her husband in this case, absolutely could not get access to them. That would necessarily preclude them from even being in the home we're talking about.

ScienceChic wrote: What I was hoping to do was to stimulate a discussion on these various scenarios. At what point does the state cross the line of being proactive in protecting its citizens to being abusive in trampling its citizens' rights in the name of "community safety"? If the people in Holmes' life had alerted authorities, would they have investigated more closely, and caught him before he murdered a dozen people and wounded over 70 more?

A fine line, to be sure. I'd argue that it all depends on one's own personal views toward "government" in general as to your posit. I won't say the perp's name in the Aurora theater shooting, but I will say that the people in that monster's life are not to blame, just as the people in the Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and so many others are not to blame. The blame lies solely with, and staunchly on the shoulders of the perps, themselves. I will say, however, that awareness can, and sometimes does, play a significant role in helping prevent these kinds of travesties. The problem is, IMHO, the stigma attached to mental illness. The "if only" questions after the fact are just that if we do nothing to address the stigma associated with this pervasive illness, and they always will be....as we've been seeing time and time again. Perhaps if we, as a society, did not encourage and perpetuate our own misconceptions and perceptions regarding this illness, perhaps if we as individuals chose to learn more about what we could do to help rather than condemn or make fun of people suffering from this malady, perhaps then more people would be willing to come forward actually seeking the help they so badly need. Again, speaking from my own life experience in this area, my first wife was absolutely petrified of what others might think of her if they found out she was suffering from her diagnosed mental illness. Her's was pervasive, her's was insidious, her's was debilitating in the extreme. And yet, no one outside of a very few select family and friends knew of her affliction to the extent she was suffering from it. They knew something was amiss, but they had no idea the extent of her illness. Sorry....rambling here.

ScienceChic wrote: On that line of thought, has anyone seen Minority Report? Yes, it's sci-fi and not reality-based at all, but what about the notion of stopping crimes before they begin? False accusations are so easy to start, and much harder to stop; power corrupts and governments tend toward building more and more power over time to the point of abusing their constituents - how do citizens police that or what is acceptable collateral damage in the name of "that's life"?

Removing the stigma, somehow, that is associated with mental illness in general would go a long way toward answering your questions here, SC. I believe "more guns" isn't the answer. I also believe "more gun control" isn't the answer, either. It's going to take much more than either of those conditions can be reasonably expected to provide.

My two cents.

I think we throw the term "mental illness" around far to easily and frequently. Were the 9/11 terrorists all mentally ill, or were they just really really bad people with no regard for human life? I believe this country has been creating bad people through media images that a certain percentage of people become desensitized to... then add the devolving family structure and we get a group of people who feel justified and have nothing to lose. Yes, there are people who have biological problems in their brains, but for the most part, I just see a society that breeds a lack of respect for human life and now those "chickens are coming home to roost" (to quote another bad guy who happens to be a racist).

Rick wrote: I think we throw the term "mental illness" around far to easily and frequently. Were the 9/11 terrorists all mentally ill, or were they just really really bad people with no regard for human life? I believe this country has been creating bad people through media images that a certain percentage of people become desensitized to... then add the devolving family structure and we get a group of people who feel justified and have nothing to lose. Yes, there are people who have biological problems in their brains, but for the most part, I just see a society that breeds a lack of respect for human life and now those "chickens are coming home to roost" (to quote another bad guy who happens to be a racist).

Are you including veterans and first responders suffering from PTSD in that group of people having "biological problems in their brains"?

A very simple, very straightforward analysis by comedian, Andy Borowitz: