A couple comments:"It is unfortunate the White House has taken
the bait...." Never let a crisis go to waste. Isn't that one of the
golden rules of our Dear Leader? He has an agenda to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
As a senator, he made the statement that he didn't believe people should
be able to own guns. His agenda is clear: Destroy the Constitution.Mental illness seems to have exploded in society, especially ever since big
agriculture and the industrial food industry began dictating how our food is
processed and produced. Add to that modern pollution and you get a chemical
soup that is killing off brain cells. Then, add in the new DSM V with all sorts
of imaginary illnesses and no wonder the majority of the population are
considered mentally ill.How about this: we go back to the same diet
that prevailed in the 1800's. No processed foods loaded with artificial
colors, flavors and preservatives, cut waaaaay back on sugar, get rid of harmful
vegetable oils that come from poisonous plants, eat free range, grass fed meats
and maybe people won't be so sick. Just a thought.
Pretty bold piece considering the repeat of the scenario in Santa Monica....
mentally ill person with a huge arsenal. I really don't understand how you
can cleanly divide the issues, when the combination of the two has such clear
and tragic results.But what ever.... perhaps a few mass killings a
year by a mentally deranged person is the price we are willing to pay for gun
ownership. Arizona, Colorado, Sandy Hook. Now Santa Monica. Evidently it is a price society is willing to pay to allow the mentally ill to
So Deseret News editorial board, you who have advocated against greater taxes
for public funding of critical services like mental health, you who have
attacked President Obama and others for their efforts to increase medical and
mental health coverage, you who continually demand "personal
responsibility" over community--you are now lecturing us on how we
don't do enough for mental health? Please.
Guns have been around for 500 years. Yet students taking bombs and guns to
school to murder people is recent. What has changed?For one,
violent games and t.v. are now common ways for youth to spend their time. For
another, it is now common for mothers with young children to send their children
to daycare, instead of raising them themselves giving them the love and
direction that mothers in years prior used to provide. All of this is a recipe
for less well adjusted children.Guns are not the problem. Take them
away and misfits can and will find other tools to do what it is that people who
are not well adjusted when it comes to violence do.Problems are best
solved by attacking the roots, not the symptoms.
Re: "I really don't understand how you can cleanly divide the issues .
. . ."Well, deranged people will sometimes drink, get drunk, and
hurt others. So, since we can't cleanly divide the issues, we'll have
to ban drinking by everyone.Or, since the mentally ill sometimes
drive and hurt people, including themselves, and, since we can't cleanly
divide the issues, we must ban driving by all people. Or, given that
mentally ill people sometimes overdose on illicit drugs and and prescription
medications, and since we can't cleanly divide the issues, banning drugs
and medications entirely, for everyone, is the only intelligent solution.I'm sure that, out of their overwhelming concern for human life and
the mentally ill, ALL good liberals will quickly line up to support these
No. You can't extract the gun violence aspect from these incidents.
Re: "No. You can't extract the gun violence aspect from these
incidents."Sure I can -- solve the mental illness issue, and
there won't be a gun violence issue. It completely obviates the need to do
violence to our Constitution.See how easy that was?And,
BTW, if liberals believe these issues to be so inextricably entwined, how do
they extract the mental health issues from drinking, driving, taking
medications, and most other normal activities of life that could pose a danger
to the deranged or those with whom they come in contact?Are you
really in favor of a total ban on drinking, driving, and taking medications?
"Guns have been around for 500 years. Yet students taking bombs and guns to
school to murder people is recent. What has changed?"Completely
untrue. A statement like was made a while ago, so I did a little research...
and found numerous case of this going well back into the 1800s. In fact I found
over 100 incidents in the 1800s from my quick search.But that said,
we seem to have an acceleration of events...and I do think those who have
disconnective issues with reality are more likely to have issues given the
prevalence of first person shooter games out there.The resent news
is been ever so ironical in that we want unlimited freedoms, but not the
outcomes that come with that freedom. We want limited government, limited
responsibility to one another... and yet wring out hands when events like these,
or 9/11 occur and don't understand why these events were not stopped.It should make for some interesting debates. Freedom versus
I think I steel need a few more cat's around the house. But how many is
"Sure I can -- solve the mental illness issue, and there won't be a gun
violence issue"It's just that simple. Solve mental health
issues.... much easier then banning those mentally ill from obtaining guns.And there you go. It is settled.
Once again the DN has been drinking too much Kool-Tea.Using this
sort of illogic, We should the "Keep the issues of DRUNK Driving
and ALCOHOL separate".Cause and Effect ARE most certainly
On the one hand we can decide to try to improve health care for people suffering
from mental illnesses, and make that treatment more accessible.On
the other hand, we can take steps to prevent guns from falling into the hands of
criminals and mentally ill people who may pose a risk to themselves or others
due to their condition.These are not mutually exclusive options;
this is not an "either-or" scenario. If the goal is to decrease gun
violence, then shouldn't we treat both the symptoms and the underlying
Stop making a scapegoat for national violence out of people in the mental health
system! We get 3 statistics, 46 %, 26 %, and 06 %, pertaining to the numbers of
people, in the National Institute of Mental Health estimation, that have
diagnosable "mental illnesses"--whatever that means. Given those
statistics, it's a long leap from almost half the population to one person
in twenty. Such a dragnet is obviously much too wide. Massive acts of violence
are not a symptom of any "mental disorder" in the DSM. Murder is a
crime; murder is not an illness. The Insanity Defense is a bad one that should
be stricken from the books. People need to be held accountable for their actions
even when they behave in a foolish or irresponsible fashion. The Insanity
Defense, very much like the federal background check system, only serves to
persecute completely innocent people. We've had enough persecutions. now
let's get back to the business of prosecuting the guilty.
I agree... they are both issues, but separate issues IMO.Guns
aren't the only weapons that should be kept out of the hands of the
mentally ill. And I don't know that the Government is capable of keeping
them out of the hands of the mentally ill. It's not possible for the
Government to know the mental status of all it's citizens at all times. We
should be relying on the FAMILY to keep deadly weapons of all kinds out of the
hands of their family members who are mentally unstable.It's in
their own interest (in both recent cases the mentally ill person killed their
family before turning on the rest of society). So if you don't want them
to kill you first... don't give mentally ill family members access to
deadly weapons!The Government can't do it. WE have to do it.
We know our children, spouse, parents. The Government doesn't know their
status (it could change day-to-day). Keep guns and ALL deadly weapons out of
the hands of mentally ill family members. DON'T WAIT for the government
to do it!
RE: Frank BlankenshipWhile mental illness may contribute to only a
small fraction of total murders, mental illness is indisputably relevant to a
large subset of gun violence - namely, self-inflicted gun violence. Mental illness (severe depression) is obviously one of the two
nearly-universal factors in the more than 15,000 annual gun suicides in the U.S.
(the other common factor being the presence of a gun).
RE: 2bitsI agree that we shouldn't abdicate all responsibility
to the government, and I also think that we should be wary the government
overstepping its bounds. However, I think the government does have a role to
play. The 2nd Amendment includes the term "well-regulated".
Well-regulated meant "prepared", "well-trained" or
"educated" at the time the Constitution was written. This suggests to
me that the government has some responsibility to ensure that gun owners are
properly trained. To that end, I would suggest that it would be
reasonable for the government to require gun owners to attend gun safety course
at regular intervals (say, every six years or so). The safety courses could
cover topics such as proper gun storage, conflict resolution, and recognizing
severe depression and suicide warning signs. Mandatory gun safety
trainings will lead to a well-regulated community of gun owners, and help ensure
that gun owners are better-equipped with the information necessary to prevent
Why is "mental illness" led gun rampages to prevalent here in the USA?
Why don't other countries experience similar violent crime rates? Are their
peoples less prone to mental illness than our own? Why? Is it something in the
water? Or is it the ease of obtaining guns without any background checks or
@procuradorfiscalTooele, UT======= You've
made two comments already about this, and in both - you referred to a
total 100% ban of all guns to all citizens.Please site anywhere in
the article this total ban of all guns was referred.All-or-Nothingism such as this is just another perfect example of hysterical
Fender Bender,I didn't say the Government should have "no
role" in it, I just said they can be addressed as separate issues, and will
be hard for the Government to address sufficiently on their own. Government
obviously have a role in it. For one... they need to give the families the
laws they need to help control their mentally ill family members. It SHOULD be illegal for mentally ill people to have deadly weapons (but not
just guns). A parent needs to be able to call for help (ie police) if their
mentally ill son has a gun. But they also need to call for help if he's
headed to the school with a machete, club, or a bomb. When people focus only
on guns... they exposes their real agenda. The "Well regulated
militia" argument has already been decided by the Supreme Court, and they
didn't agree with you. They already ruled that Washington DC
couldn't restrict gun ownership to military, police, etc.Government absolutely has a role in BOTH of these issues. Separately and
together. But some people are trying to use it as an excuse to restrict all
legal gun ownership.
To "UtahBlueDevil" if you look at the data on guns, the problem
isn't the guns, but the mental illness. It is paranoia like yours that
must be overcome so that we can address the mental health problems that the mass
murders have.To "Open Minded Mormon" Drunk Driving and
Alcohol are related, however, you should look at Alchololism and Drunk driving
as separate issues. The world has shown us that if you take away the guns, the
mentally ill and criminals will just find new ways of kiling people.
Re Utah blue devilAre you going to share this 'research'
with the rest of us?Why when I Google 'students murder
classmates', or even 'student gun violence' I can only find
recent examples.Say what you will about Glen Beck, but he hired a a
team of Journalists to research gun history in America and they found only
recent examples of students going to schools and murdering other students. He
put this research into his book 'Control'.If you have
research to counter their research and my research on Google, please share the
specifics with the rest of us.
Maverick,Other countries do experience similar violent crimes. If you
don't realize that... it's just the coolaid.Examples:- 77 killed by lone wolf terrorist in Norway (some by gun, some by car
bomb)- Sarin attack in Japan subway- Daily car bombings in Iraq and
Afghanistan- Recent Be-headings in EnglandThe list could go
on. But the point is... we are not the only country, and guns aren't the
only weapon.Crime rates differ in every country and there's a
number of reasons (not just our gun laws). It's also how we treat the
mentally ill in the USA (we let them live at home and try to be productive
instead of institutionalizing them). We also have a different culture. More
affluent population than some countries. More time for violent movies and
video games. Access to many types of weapons (but I can assure you attacks
happen with other types of weapons in countries where guns are highly restricted
or the population can't afford them).Access to guns is one
factor. But it's far from the ONLY factor. As long as you pretend
it's only our gun laws... it exposes your real agenda.
Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is a no-brainer IMO. I
don't think ANYBODY's pushing for the mentally ill to have MORE access
to guns.The interesting thing to me is.. why Democrat leaders keep
focusing so much attention on keeping guns out of the hands of concealed-carry
permit holders, etc... while they coddle the gang-bangers with guns that are
doing most of the day-to-day murders (mainly for drug turf in Chicago, LA, etc).
The murder numbers in Chicago are HUGE compared to the number killed by lone
wolf gunmen in schools, etc. But how much attention is being given to the
murders by Gang_Bangers in Chicago, LA, etc? It all seems so
backwards to focus so much attention on keeping guns away from legal gun
owners... and not be concerned at all about gang-bangers that all have guns and
are committing almost all of the murders in America today.
RE: 2 bitsI didn't write anything suggesting the government
should restrict gun ownership.
We have two rights at odds. Personal liberty (applies to the mentally ill
unless proven dangerous) and the Second Amendment.I'll bet most
of us know more than one person who worries us just a bit. Should we put them
in a secure facility? Would we do that with the relatively young? If we do,
there is a huge expense in providing state housing (they are not volunteering,
so it is a state function and would be state paid).As to firearms.
There is no doubt (arguments otherwise are idiotic) that, despite other options
for killing, firearms are built for the purpose and easily accessible. How do
we control access to those who really should not have them? If I am competent
(mentally and with a firearm) does that mean I cannot own them if I have an
incompetent person in the house? I would say get a safe to keep them in, but I
think Adam Lanza's mother had one. Yes, the NRA can seem hysterical, but
all rights must be guarded fiercely from forces that would erode them. A little
here, a bit there, and soon there is no right remaining.Sorry, no
answers. Just thoughts.
@UtahBlueDevil:Yes there were incidents in the 1800's. And some of it
is probably linked to Video Games, no parent at home, no discipline at home or
in school, etc. But there is also the fact that we have much better reporting of
news today and 6 times the population of 1880 which was nearly double that of
1850. We also have 3 times the pop. of 1910. So the potential for more mental
illness has increased also.
On the one hand, we have irrational people blaming crimes on inanimate objects
(firearms). These irrational people push for laws banning pistol grips or
folding stocks, or limiting magazine size, in the vain and irrational hope that
firearms without such features can't be used to harm others.A
rational person realizes that a firearm is a tool, and thus is as good or bad as
the person using it. So rationally you'd want as many good people as
possible to be armed.On the other hand we have problems with
ineffectively treated mental illness. The shooter at Sandy Hook, the shooter
who nearly killed a Congresswoman, the shooter at the theater in Colorado, etc.
Over and over we see crimes involving multiple victims where the perpetrators
have ineffectually treated mental illness.Now, as long as we have
irrational people who push for irrational laws infringing on Constitutional
rights, the law-abiding citizens will have reason to point out the obvious: the
fact that law-abiding citizens aren't the problem, nor are Constitutional
rights the problem. Thus the discussion goes back to criminals and
ineffectually treated mentally ill.
To "Twin Lights" all the regulations to control access to guns will not
stop those intent on harming others from getting them. Just look at much of
Europe for an example. Many parts have banned guns from being owned by most
people. Even with such a ban, criminals and those intent on doing harm can
still find a way to get guns.One thing to think about is this: The
feds have been trying to control access to Alcohol and Tobacco for decades to
those of a specific age. Do you really think that with their track record they
can stop people from getting guns?
Re: "The 2nd Amendment includes the term 'well-regulated' . . . .
This suggests to me that the government has some responsibility to ensure that
gun owners are properly trained."No doubt.But that
doesn't mean there is anything in the Constitution that would justify that
suggestion.There isn't.In fact, the clear language
is exactly to the contrary -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED [my emphasis].NO honest reading of the
Constitution suggests that the words "shall NOT be infringed" should be
read to mean "shall" or "may be infringed," so long as liberals
can come up with the right magic incantation.Liberals that want to
change the Constitution should just be honest about it, rather than hide behind
language that was never intended to nullify important rights.
Re: "Please site [sic] anywhere in the article this total ban of all guns
was referred."Why limit inquiry to the 4 corners of the article?
I'm sure you don't disingenuously suggest that most liberals
DON'T want to ban all guns, and would, if they thought they could get away
with it, do you?That would be laughable.But my point is
illustrated by a more modest proposal, as well. Let's ban drinking,
driving, and taking medicine by anyone designated as mentally ill by some
distant, unaccountable Washington bureaucrat.Of course there would
still be a total ban on all cars of a particular color, or with fuel capacity
greater than 10 quarts. After all, who really needs a white car, that could be
lost in a snowstorm, or more than enough fuel to get to the next gas station?Your more radical liberal friends will undoubtedly bleat that this
modest proposal doesn't go far enough, but surely rational, intelligent
liberals such as yourself wouldn't oppose such a reasonable approach, would
I really don't know the answers to all of this. I do believe in the second
amendment but gun ownership comes with responsibility. Take the
Sandy Hook shooting. The mom has a cache of weapons and even has them locked
away, if accounts are accurate. But it should be obvious to her that her son
has some issues. But people often live in denial about their own children and
their mental health. So her kid gets his hand on this cache of weaponry, kills
her then kills 26 other innocent people, 20 of them small children.I'm not sure what this all means but people, especially with young people
living in their home, need to take real look at their situation and whether they
should have firearms in their household. I mean a real close look.
RedShirt,I actually think a total ban would cut down on violent
crime but it would be only over time because guns would have to filter out of
the system slowly. Alcohol and tobacco are legal. There is no total ban. So,
there is always new product to cross into the illegal markets.Under
a total ban, criminals could get guns on the black market only at very premium
prices. As the legal supply dwindles, prices would rise. There are no other
countries in the world I am aware of that has such a large private gun market to
supply the black market.None of this is to say this is the right
thing to do. Lots of things could be controlled to good effect but should not
be, especially where fundamental rights are involved. Also, the ownership and
use of firearms is part of American independence and self reliance. Beyond the
rights issue, getting rid of guns would fundamentally change America well beyond
issues of violence. Something I and many others would regret.
Redshirt.... hardly paranoid. But thanks. I just don't like the math.
The shooter in Colorado was under treatment. The chap in Santa Monica was under
treatment. I guess if there were a magic pill that we could give the
"mentally ill", it would be a simple problem to solve. But bi-polarism,
depression, and other like problems aren't nice tidy little problems to
solve. It isn't 'take two pills and call me in the morning"
easy.How people like you think restricting guns from the mentally
ill is a sign of "paranoia" beats me. Lets put this really
simple. I like the recourse if a mistake is made. If a sane person is denied a
weapon because there is reasonable or unreasonable suspicion they might be
stable... that problem can be corrected. Annoying, but easily fixed in
time.You let the mentally ill have weapons - we have seen now 4
instances in the outcome of that over last couple of years - and the results of
these mistakes cant be fixed.
How do you keep them separate when mentally ill can buy AK 47 at saturday swap
meet gun shows.
This problem isn't going away.Nobody REALLY cares about gun
deaths and nobody REALLY cares about mental health issues until they are
directly affected.If you think anyone here cares enough to actually
do anything about either of these issues, you are deluding yourself. It's
apparently even too much to ask people to show any level sensitivity or empathy
towards those affected by these issues.People are too
self-interested for either of these issues to ever be resolved. Don't kid
To "procuradorfiscal" unfortunately the term well regulated is part of
the militia clause. The way that the sentence is written, the term "well
regulated" does not apply to the right to bear arms.To "Twin
Lights" unfortunately what you want to do has already been done elsewhere,
and has failed. Here are the stats for violent crimes (2009) per 100,000
people, where most countries have banned guns:England: 2034Australia: 1677South Africa: 1609Sweden: 1123Belgium:
1006Canada: 935Finland: 738Netherlands: 676US: 566Judging by the facts, banning guns only will lead to an INCREASE in
violent crime.To "UtahBlueDevil" so then, you agre that the
problem isn't the guns, but that the mentally ill are not better treated.
No, there is no magic pill, but there are better ways to deal with mental
illness than are currently employed because most people just want the magic pill
and don't want to actually have to put the effort into fixing themselves.
Redshirt,Interesting data. Not sure how it correlates country to
country (might need to refine for particular crimes like murder) but interesting
nonetheless.As to banning firearms being what I want. Please reread
my posts. That is not my position.
To "Twin Lights" you said "I actually think a total ban would cut
down on violent crime but it would be only over time because guns would have to
filter out of the system slowly."In England they have such
restrictive gun laws that in effect guns are banned. You said that if we banned
guns then violent crime would be lowered. The facts show that in some of the
countries with the total gun bans that violent crime is significantly worse than
in the US.If you don't want guns banned, why did you say that
you think that banning guns will lower crime rates.
Redshirt,Please read the last paragraph:None of this is
to say this is the right thing to do. Lots of things could be controlled to good
effect but should not be, especially where fundamental rights are involved.
Also, the ownership and use of firearms is part of American independence and
self reliance. Beyond the rights issue, getting rid of guns would fundamentally
change America well beyond issues of violence. Something I and many others would