Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of what you say is spot on. No "laws" are going to change any of that either. Unless of course, we ban war.
Those who take power are not that bright and do not know how to create and run a normal economy...It is common fact that when all else fails...have a war..that should boost and "stimulate" things...AMERICA is like a great and talented rock band with horrible managers and agents..You have to find a way to get brighter people into public office..
.Those that can run an empire with out resorting to the old play book............Gun control for instance is ignored because...there are those who use the divide and conquer methods of rule...as long as the population is killing each other they are easy to control...as long as they are emotional and violent they are easy to control........
.Those in Washington are bums....There is no sign of intelligent life in that elite circle of millionaires and billionaires who feed off of the people.....You need benevolent kings and queens...Noble and generous people in office...Not just arrogant and blindly ambitious and the overly entitled idiots that take the seats of power.
I was mis-informed about what weapons were used watching the news and I am willing to admit that! However I am still against assault weapons either way.
I really don't have to read your link because Dubya let the "assault weapons' ban expire so this shooting is just another in a series that we will be facing in the future like VA Tech, Newtown or Colorado Springs.
Talk about blood on your hands.
Hopefully by now, since there have been about 20 posts trying to correct your misinformed antics, that no "assualt weapon" was used (and predicting your response at recovery "but, but...they were used in the past").
By the way, what politician recently recommended that we all get a shotgun for personal defense?
You guys do know this guy was a Veteran who had access to 150 billion in VA benefits. He had an honorable discharge. Sounds like he was a future Republican. Where was the failure??
I read that the Navy Yard shooter's discharge was a step under 'honorable'.
The Navy Yard shooter was and intelligent person and probably turned to Buddhism to gain peace in his life. He sounds like a person who most would like.
He called the police a month before the incident, saying he heard people outside of his room. When he stepped out of his room he found 'them' in the lobby and 'they' followed him.
He thought this was real.
He wanted the police to help get rid of them.
The police just notified the Navy.
Did the Navy do anything to help him?
The mental health system in the US is broken. There should not be tortured, whacked out, people walking the same streets as we are. The solution cannot be to just give them drugs and let them go. Obviously, in many people, those drugs cause other problems, some worse than the initial problem, sometimes leaving a trail of dead bodies.
Sure, there are facilities for the criminally insane, but those are people who have already done damage.
We need more facilities for those who are not yet criminals, but who we cannot guarantee will not be. When people are put on meds they need to be watched for a longer period of time. If people are out among the public and start being disruptive, they should be taken back to the facility before they reach the stage of hurting someone.
This country was started with every home having guns. We, the public, have had guns for a very long time with little problem. It's only recently in our history that things have changed and we have these incidents.
What's changed?
What's causing this?
The gun issue aside, do other countries have a proportional number of people who have breaks and just try to hurt as many people as possible or is it just us?
26% of all Americans have a diagnosed mental disorder, each year. Mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Most are medicated. There's not enough money in the world to closely observe everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental disorder.
Are those with diagnosed mental disorders more likely to become violent than the general population?
How many more people have not sought help and are undiagnosed?
No one can guarantee that someone else may/may not become violent at some future date.
No one can be forced to take their meds unless a court has enough evidence to deem them incompetent to the point of involuntary commitment.
The only predictor of future violence is past violence.
The U.S. is a world leader compared to other developed nations in gun violence and mass shootings.
The constitution gives all the right to bear arms. The U.S. has more guns in circulation than any other place on earth. That along with the size of the population means that gun violence occurs more frequently. That's the price tag of the second amendment.
There is no reasonable way to keep guns out of the hands of people who intend to use them to cause random or targeted harm. Attempts to do so is nothing more than pandering to voters to " do something".
Even tho he may have had mental problems just the planning likely shows he knew what he was doing and difference between right and wrong. He seemed what FBI profiler said was called a Grievance Accumulator.
It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.
This changed in the 1960s and 70s.
Was that change, a mistake?
In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentallly ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governeor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.
The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagans' last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.
When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".
From Wikipedia:
The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:
To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.
The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.
You guys do know this guy was a Veteran who had access to 150 billion in VA benefits. He had an honorable discharge. Sounds like he was a future Republican. Where was the failure??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mental Health in the US - Navy Yard Shooter
