Have You Known Someone that Might go on a Shooting Spree at Work, School, etc?

Reminds me of the old joke: On the Internet, nobody knows you are a rage killer.

Oh. I mean dog.

 

I guess the current school/work environment would justify driving a Hummer and wearing bullet-proof clothing. Nice way to make a living.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Apr 23 2007, 09:53 AM) [snapback]428420[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Apr 23 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]428429[/snapback]</div>

You are assuming that you can identify who is going to become a killer. The vast majority of disturbed, or angry, or abused people never become mass murderers.

We could certainly reduce violence by identifying warning signs and providing help to people who need it, but first we'd have to eliminate the stigma of mental illness.

The first President Bush talked about making America a "kinder and gentler" nation. He and his pup have made the country meaner and more agressive, but the sentiment was a good one. Violence will continue to increase until we start being kinder and gentler with our fellow human beings. Locking up everyone whose behavior seems "a little off" will just turn America into a gulag nation.

 

Two people come to mind. One at work, a young lady who was obviously insane and a pathological liar. She was about 21 and had 4 kids--that alone might be enough to make some people crazy. She ended up being fired. And we all feared she might retailiate, but nothing ever happened. A year or so later, I saw her in a neighboring city, working as a clerk in a hardware store.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Apr 23 2007, 06:37 AM) [snapback]428298[/snapback]</div>

That's one of the questions the state has to answer, why their system didn't report the SOB to the national registry. They have appointed a panel of people to look into it, including former PA Gov. Tom Ridge (also former DHS Secretary). Ridge said one of the questions they have to answer is why the background check didn't reveal the judge's finding that the SOB was, at one point, a danger to himself (but not others, according to the mental health people).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 23 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]428760[/snapback]</div>

I think we may need to reinstate some of the "stigma". Perhaps we should allow more leeway for a school to remove a student who has problems:

From the NY Times

Most state laws prohibit a school from asking about mental health on applications, so we have to wait until they get into the school, and act bizarre, before reacting. And since the school cannot even discuss the mental health, weird actions or anything about the student to the parents, the "loner" is effectively made even more of a loner, and even more isolated from perhaps the only people that know his history.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 24 2007, 12:55 AM) [snapback]428879[/snapback]</div>

One poster on PC made mention of someone that they know who suffers from anxiety and depression and that they qualified for a gun - surprisingly. Mental health problems carry their own stigma often times due to lack of knowledge, understanding or compassion about specific disorders. I suffer from panic attacks and have encountered one severe bout with depression and can attest that I was of more mind to harm myself than anyone else. As a matter of fact, the latter never occurred to me. Schizophrenics are also much more likely to commit self harm than they are to subject their ills upon the general public. So who is to judge the applicant's mental health disorder and which disorders would be exempt from acceptance?

I believe that social behavior and interactions are far more effective when identifying those with dangerous intent. Usually, warning signs are present well before their heinous act is committed. If we couple this with a review of their mental health profile, I would say that this is acceptable. But, to judge one based solely on a mental health disorder is likely not responsible or the most reliable method available to us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Apr 24 2007, 12:07 PM) [snapback]429225[/snapback]</div>

Since gun suicides roughly equal the number of gun murders, I would think you would be a candidate for having a restriction on buying a gun. While the SOB Cho wasn't considered "a danger to others" either, he obviously was. Just two years ago, he was evaluated as being a danger to himself, but not to others. Giving the mental health professionals the benefit of the doubt, we can at least say his mental condition deteriorated in the two years following the initial diagnosis. Or they were "living wrong" with the diagnosis (the 32 people other people are truly dead.)

Society has to be allowed to make judgments like this. We can remain compassionate, and say that those with mental problems currently or in the past should have to be evaluated, registered, and then re-evaluated every year or two to retain ownership of the gun. Anyone who's mental health depends on maintenance drugs should not be allowed to own firearms, since they can stop taking medicine and kill themselves or others.

While most people with mental health problems are not a danger to anyone else, nearly all of the spree mass murderers have been people with mental health problems. Rather than restricting the civil rights of everyone, we should minimize the number of people who have their rights abridged.