Posted on 10/07/2015 4:08:25 PM PDT by conservativejoy
The media act as if theyre performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.
Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.
The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While Im here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)
Theres a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that wont work, blame it on guns.
The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They dont want to reward the fiend with publicity!
But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: Its a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?
When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter.
Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness cant be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?
Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.
True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.
Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness both imminent and physical as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards you might almost call them common sense allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.
The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.
According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:
Austria, 175
Finland, 218
Germany, 175
Sweden, 114
England, 93
The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. voluntarily or involuntarily is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.
After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Heres an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?
Liberals will howl about stigmatizing the mentally ill, but they sure dont mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.
But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population I think weve found the crucial ingredient!
Democrats wont be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:
Most mentally ill are not violent!
Undoubtedly true. BUT WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.
The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!
Ill wager that the percentage of the nations 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.
As with the most Muslims are peaceful canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.
How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons and, every now and then, commit mass murder?
Actually the problem is white men and guns (in private hands). The lie is that the objective is to stop mass shootings.
The problem is liberal women.
0's einsatz grupen strong cities is looking for people like you.
I'm one of the white men with guns. And they could very well be looking for me before it's all over with, but they're not going to be wanting me to join up.
Whatever advances the agenda.
Democrats want the mentally ill to be free and voting the straight RAT ticket.
Reassuring, but I fear the left’s inexorable push to define mental illness down - like they do with their fungible term of art “wealthy” - will cast such a fine-mesh net that ANYone who has ever received a formal psychiatric diagnosis, no matter how benign, would be forbidden their fundamental, human, civil, God-given, Constitutional right to keep an bear arms. Don’t believe it? Look into the history of Stalin’s sending “Refuseniks” to the Gulag and psychiatric hospitals. It’s simple to define “mentally ill” as disagreeing with a dictator’s edicts and require “psychiatric treatment.” Why, the purveyors of the mythos of the church of anthropogenic global warming are calling for this very thing as we speak. Either you buy into their state-sponsored religion or you’re mentally ill and should be sent to a reeducation camp. This is how it works, people. This is how it’s ALWAYS worked.
But when Kate Steinle was shot and it was revealed the gun was stolen from a BLM agent the narrative was abandoned. No tortured histrionics demanding to know why a BLM agent needs an automatic 40 gauge assault pistol to do land management, or demanding new laws to punish irresponsible gun owners for leaving firearms unsecured in a parked car. Taking his gun away doesn't advance the agenda, which means the agenda isn't what they claim.
yep
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.