Unfortunately we can't fight mental illness the way we fight terrorism, but I think the key right now is trying to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Can that realistically be achieved though? I don't think it can.
Probably not. But you can make an effort. Like I said, not having guns in the house at the very least makes them have to go elsewhere to get the gun instead of right in their own house. It's easy to know where stuff is hidden in your own house. More difficult a neighbor or something.
I am sorry, the problem is not that the attacks happen. The problem is the damage the attacks cause - and guns are most certainly the cause here. If an unstable person goes into a rage armed with a plastic spoon he is going to cause a lot less damage - so the size of the tragedy is definitely caused by guns, their power, speed and ability to inflict damage, compounded by their ready availability, ease of use and lack of control. You can cause a lot more issues by poisoning water sources - but water reservoirs (at least in most urban areas) are much better controlled - so this issue is not as prevalent.
The "why" question is one that any sane person inevitably asks after an incident like this. The problem is that these things aren't done by sane people and to the insane "why" isn't something that even necessarily factors into their actions. It seems to me that the key action that needs to be taken is to do a better job at identifying and treating people with mental health issues. The issue of gun control is certainly something that is due for some discussion and action on a national policy level. It's brought into sharp focus when, on the same day as the Newtown rampage, there's an attack on school kids in Beijing by a guy using a knife to stab 22 children. Some were critically injured, but there have been no deaths from the attack. I'm in favor of responsible citizens being able to own guns for hunting and for personal protection. I do think, however, that there need to be some changes to the procedures necessary to buy guns, both to reduce access by those with mental health issues and to require more training buy purchasers . There probably also need to be changes in the types of guns available for purchase, possibly limits on who can buy semi-automatic weapons or maybe reduction in clip size. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have the answers as to what needs to be done, but it's time to start talking in a reasonable manner about this topic.
I have had experience with dealing with mental illness. A) The laws protect people to the point that you can not deny anyone of their civil rights without proving that they are a threat to them selves or others. This is done before a judge and is a long process, can take up to a few weeks to get before a judge. Once you can prove that someone is a threat they can be placed in an insitiution for an evaluation and can be treated and detained for up to 180 days. Once they are deemed "stable" that are released. Many never follow up with treatment or counceling, they fall through the cracks, end up othe streets, in shelters or dead. Those that have family or are fortunate unough to have a support system need little to constant care. Some may end up in a group home where care can be all over the map. The lucky one will be taken into a relitives home if there is someone available to provide supervision. with all of that said..you cant jus tsay we need to make X law to protect us..those who suffer mental illness dont play by ANY rules in many cases.
I can't argue with that, but like that Chinese knife attack, 22 kids were stabbed. And while that attack didn't take any lives, there have been many stabbings in China in the last few years that did. So like I said, we need to understand the cause rather than worry about the aftermath. But it's easier to blame the guns than to take a long, hard look at what is causing this.
I am sorry, but "need to understand the cause" is irresponsible. What happens if it takes 100 more incidents of "understanding the cause" to get to it? What if it is 200, 1000? I said it before, and I will say it again, a percentage improvement in damage control is well worth the cost - even if it does not eliminate the problem completely. Understanding the human psyche is complicated. Improving control over dangerous tools is much easier - and even if it does not eradicate violence completely - it is still well worth pursuing. I suspect that each one of the parents of the dead children would take an injury over death 10 times out of 10 if given the option. The fact is - it is easier to manufacture and distribute guns nowadays, and their performance has increased with better materials and science - this leads to the fact that they are easier to obtain and use than ever. The idea that there should not be better measures to control it are out of touch with reality, as is the idea that if we can not fix all cases we should not strive to remove many...
It's ideal to understand and stop the cause, for sure. However, like was just mentioned, nobody died in the Chinese attack. I'm sure there are plenty of families right now who'd be happy to visit their child in the hospital/spend christmas in the hospital dealing with a knife wound than the alternative those families are facing today. Sometimes, it's incredibly difficult to find the cause or stop the cause of violent acts, so eliminatin the tools used to carry them out is the next best option.
QT andalusian I said it before, and I will say it again, a percentage improvement in damage control is well worth the cost - even if it does not eliminate the problem completely. Understanding the human psyche is complicated. Improving control over dangerous tools is much easier - and even if it does not eradicate violence completely - it is still well worth pursuing. man I understand your reasoning but to focus all the attention on one factor is the finger in the dyke Mental illness does not need a specific item to kill I have seen a church burned, houses burned, people run over others, and beaten to death..no guns there...
Very true but there is no reason to make things easier for them either. Its like keeping your kitchen knifes on the playroom floor of your todler and saying "those are only for grown ups"
how exactly are we going to eliminate guns? aside from a massively overpriced buyback program, i just dont see people forking over there hard earned property
our bill of rights has been shit on by the patriot act and ndaa already, which is a bigger travesty imo "they who can give up liberty to obtain safety deserve neither." ben franklin
Well since your wish is as practical as saying, "there should be peace on earth for all of mankind", I really don't get your point. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the U.S. There is ZERO chance a constitutional amendment would pass in any of our lifetimes. Tight regulations, very finely written and compentently enforce MAY reduce overall risks at the margins, but the cost would be significant - billions of dollars per year. Not to put a price on it, but how much is each life "saved" worth? Unless you have some brilliant, but super secret plan that far, far greater minds have failed to devise in generations to solve this problem of people wanting to kill multiple "innocents", you are just pissing in the wind. Specifically, exactly, what is your proposal?
we could buy back everyones guns at 2000 apiece...it would only cost 600 billion! and all the antique guns could be sold to museums, like in demolition man, as long as a simon phoenix doesnt come along be well john spartan
