On 12/17/12 11:00 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/17/2012 9:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/notoriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.


I disagree on most of your points. I think the "penis" is in guns, as
badly as boats, or cars.. maybe even worse. Even my girl eyeballs the
black assault rifles in gun shops, "they look bad ass" and they are used
to them in the shooter games..

As to the death wish ok, but the notoriety part I don't see in this one.
This kid just had rage, pure and simple. As you said "revenge motive for
real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in
general". But reading the reports, I don't think the guy gave a crap
what others thought of him or making history, he just went on a rampagwe...


We don't know what was going through the mind of the shooter. He
apparently started off his killing binge by committing matricide. That
act, weird and unusual in itself, and the observations offered to date
by those who actually knew him, his age, and the horrific nature of what
he did, point to neither a death wish nor a desire for 15 minutes of
fame. Several mental health professionals who have been interviewed are
guessing the behaviors point to schizophrenia, which typically "blooms"
in young males who suffer from it between the ages of 17 and 21. Most
schizophrenics, however, are withdrawn and non-violent towards others.

Perhaps the police have found or will find some clues that shine light
on the shooter's mental state. Maybe not. The problem with guessing on
these cases where the shooter is dead and there is a lack of concrete
evidence is that it usually points in the wrong direction. I've read and
heard some reports that "violent video games" may have been involved.
Well, video games don't cause schizophrenia.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Cite?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381

That is "mass shootings" only, dip.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.



http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?



Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Stop being a liberal parrot.

"The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark
of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment.

The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs.

Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been
declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960."

This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs."

It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds
or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill.

Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states.

Sources:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html
Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act
"

It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended)

The trouble you fail to grasp and understand is that all of that was a
complete failure.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:46 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Here's what needs to be looked at instead of new, knee-jerk gun control laws.



http://now.msn.com/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-says-mom-of-mentally-ill-son?



Thanks to Reagan for cutting mental health programs....

Stop being a liberal parrot.

"The law that Reagan signed was the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), passed by the legislature & signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The idea was to "stem entry into the state hospital by encouraging the community system to accept more patients, hopefully improving quality of care while allowing state expense to be alleviated by the newly available federal funds." It also was designed to protect the rights of mental patients. It was considered a landmark
of its time--a change in the attitude toward mental illness and its treatment.

The law restricted involuntary commitment, among other things. It allows people to refuse treatment for mental illness, unless they are clearly a danger to someone else or themselves. It facilitated release of many patients---supposedly to go to community mental health treatment programs.

Reagan's role, besides signing the bill, was using it as a reason to cut his budget. What Reagan did was, at the same time the bill was passed, to reduce the budget for state mental hospitals. His budget bill "abolished 1700 hospital staff positions and closed several of the state-operated aftercare facilities. Reagan promised to eliminate even more hospitals if the patient population continued to decline. Year-end population counts for the state hospitals had been
declining by approximately 2000 people per year since 1960."

This law presumed that the people released from hospitals or not committed at all would be funneled in community treatment as provided by the Short Doyle Act of 1957. It was "was designed to organize and finance community mental health services for persons with mental illness through locally administered and locally controlled community health programs."

It also presumed that the mentally ill would voluntarily accept treatment if it were made available to them on a community basis. However, because of the restrictions on involuntary commitment, seriously mentally ill people who would not consent to treatment "who clearly needed treatment but did not fit the new criteria or who recycled through short term stays -- became a community dilemma. For them, there was nowhere to go." Once released, they would fail to take meds
or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill.

Also, unfortunately, at the time LPS was implemented, funding for community systems either declined or was not beefed up. Many counties did not have adequate community mental health services in place and were unable to fund them. Federal funds for community mental health programs, which LPS assumed would pick up the slack, began drying up in the early 1980s, due to budget cutbacks in general. The Feds shifted funding responsibility to the states.

Sources:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html
Reform of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act
"

It's not as simple as your mind thinks. (pun intended)

Here you go, only a moron like you would cherry pick ONE single site as
gospel:

http://www.dailynugget.com/2004/06/r...-and-the-ugly/

State-funded mental health care wasn?t all that great in many respects,
and advocates for the mentally ill supported reform of the large state-
run psychiatric hospitals. Reform meant that inpatient institutions,
many of which had become abusive warehouses for people the state saw as
defective, would be replaced by community-based mental health centers
who could provide appropriate, personalized care for those suffering
from mental illness while the patients lived at home, with the support
of their families. The advent of effective anti-psychotic drugs made
that possible ? but that?s not what happened.

What happened is that funding for mental health at every level, public
and private, has been consistently reduced over the last 25 years. No
insurance, public or private, covers psychiatric meds or talk therapy at
the same level that it covers physical illness. I?m not saying meds are
the solution to everything ? far from it ? but people with insurance can
access medications far more easily than they can talk therapy. For most
emotional illnesses (save schizophrenia), talk therapy is just as
effective as meds, but it?s far more expensive and insurances just don?t
pay for it.

In my area, psychiatrists don?t do therapy any more unless the patient
is paying privately. Privately insured patients can see a therapist
(one on their insurance?s panel who is taking new patients) for a
limited number of visits with a much higher copay than the one charged
for a visit with me. They can more easily access medications, but it can
take three or four months to get an appointment with a psychiatrist (one
on their insurance?s panel who is taking new patients). And all this is
assuming they can acknowledge that psychiatric care and/or therapy might
be helpful to them. People with no insurance, or with public insurance
like Medicaid, have far fewer choices. And if you have public insurance
and don?t speak English? The next available appointment with a Spanish-
speaking therapist in my community is usually six months away. If you
speak Arabic, or Farsi, or Portuguese, or French? Forget it.

I can?t imagine what yesterday afternoon must have been like for the
people in the building, their families, the family of the Leeland
Eisenberg, or the police who had to manage the situation. I imagine that
they might have nightmares, anxiety, flashbacks and other symptoms. I
hope they have better access to mental health care than Mr. Eisenberg
did, but thanks to Ronald Reagan I bet they don?t.

In article , says...

On 12/17/2012 1:18 PM, Califbill wrote:
jps wrote:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who had received an A rating from the
National Rifle Association (NRA) while he was in Congress, says that
after last week?s massacre of 20 elementary school children that ?the
ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant,? and he is now
backing a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips.

In an unusual commentary segment Monday on Morning Joe, Scarborough
connected to the recent tragedy by noting that his own children were
the age of those killed and one of his children has Asperger?s
syndrome.

?Politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo,? he
explained. ?They must instead be forced to defend our children.
Parents can no longer take no for an answer from Washington when the
topic turns to protecting our children. The violence we see spreading
from shopping malls in Oregon to movie theaters in Colorado to college
campuses in Virginia to elementary schools in Connecticut ? it?s being
spawned by a toxic brew of popular culture, a growing mental health
crisis and the proliferation of combat-style weapons.?

?I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA?s highest ratings
over four terms in Congress,? he continued. ?I saw this debate over
guns as a powerful, symbolic struggle between individual rights and
government control? I?ve spent the last few days grasping for
solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my
long-held beliefs on these subjects.?

Scarborough concluded: ?I knew that day that the ideologies of my past
career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I
demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change
everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington?s old
way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls
don?t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem
in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not
guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style,
high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity
magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to
put children before deadly dogmas.?

Seems as if there are a couple questions to be answered. First, why did a
person decide to massacre a room full of kids. And second, why target
assault rifles because of this. He used pistols.


According to the reports I am seeing here, he used a Bushmaster 223, and
killed himself with a pistol when he heard the cops coming... But the
majority of the killing was done with an assault weapon.

I just don't get the assault weapon thing, even for self defense. If you
are in a situation where you need 30 rounds to "defend" yourself, you
are probably under pretty heavy fire, and are not gonna' get out anyway.
If you can't defend yourself with 1-6 shots or so, you are over your
head. 30 round clips are for offense... And I support the 2nd
amendment... Went to a gun group today and saw somebody ask "why you
need assault weapons" the only answer I saw was "because I can"...

Wow, you actually made sense for once, thanks!

In article , says...

On 12/17/2012 3:45 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:49:41 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

What use do assault rifles have to the average gun owner? Going to start
a war?

===

It turns out that the "AR-15 style guns" make pretty decent hunting
and target rifles. They are not truly "assault rifles" however since
they can not (in most cases) fire in fully automatic mode. I agree
that it's hard to justify 30 round magazines when 5 or 10 is more than
adequate for hunting or target practice. The big mags do look cool
however and a lot of folks want them for that reason alone. Others
view them as a survival weapon if civilization as we know it breaks
down. Is that far fetched? Who can say.

The whole problem with this unfortunate incident in Connecticut lies
with the now deceased mother. She had a child with a long history of
emotional instability, taught him how to shoot, and gave him full
access to her well stocked arsenal. How stupid and irresponsible is
that?


Totally ****in' stupid.. And you are right. There is no legit reason for
those 30 clips, except to make someones penis feel bigger...

Yep! Right on again! See, you CAN think outside of the FOX!

In article , says...

On 12/17/2012 4:33 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,



Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...



It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.



Cite?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381


He'll pretend he doesn't see it... even an event like this can't make
this guy man up...

Answered, dip****.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/noteriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.

The fame thing does make you wonder. But, what is "fame" if you are
already dead by your own hand?

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:30:57 AM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, December 17, 2012 4:02:57 PM UTC-5, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







On Monday, December 17, 2012 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:



MSNBC host Joe Scarborough,







Was wrong whe he said: "The violence we see spreading...







It is not spreading, it is actually reduced from 1980-90 levels.







Cite?



http://www.tampabay.com/news/criminologist-says-mass-shootings-show-no-pattern-or-increase/1266381



That is "mass shootings" only, dip.

Which is the context of the current discussion.

In article , says...

On 12/17/2012 9:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:02 -0800, jps wrote:

I wonder what the psychological implications of having an "assault"
style weapon in your hands. Does it's style support these lunatic's
assumption that they're at war with the world?

===

I seriously doubt that the appearance of the weapon provides any
inspiration or motivation. I think the primary motivation for most
of these senseless killings is a suicidal death wish coupled with a
desire for 15 minutes of media fame/notoriety. That desire for
notoriety may also be coupled with a revenge motive for real or
imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in general.


I disagree on most of your points. I think the "penis" is in guns, as
badly as boats, or cars.. maybe even worse. Even my girl eyeballs the
black assault rifles in gun shops, "they look bad ass" and they are used
to them in the shooter games..

As to the death wish ok, but the notoriety part I don't see in this one.
This kid just had rage, pure and simple. As you said "revenge motive for
real or imagined misdeeds against them, an alienation from society in
general". But reading the reports, I don't think the guy gave a crap
what others thought of him or making history, he just went on a rampage...

I wonder about the notoriety part as well. His intentions were to kill
others, then HIMSELF, therefore, he'd not know whether he got that
notoriety or not.