You can bet there will be an increased emphasis on shootings in the news from now on. In addition to Newton, CN, there were reported shootings in California, and probably more in local news across the nation.
Of course, this will prompt renewed outcries regarding gun control. What sites do you recommend to follow the proceedings?
President Obama said "he would use 'whatever power this office holds'  in an effort to prevent more tragedies like Newtown. My 2aHawaii family knows where this is going . . .
  Get the fuller story at: http://news.msn.com/us/obama-at-newtown-vigil-us-will-have-to-change.
When I was in Israel, the school teachers carried Uzi sub-machine guns. Perhaps they have a different idea about "preventing tragedies."

Adam Lanza was the troubled gunman at the Newton, Connecticut elementary school killed 26 people, 20 of them children, and himself on Friday. He was known as "gothic, a loner, anti-social, borderline autistic."
Here is a look at some other school shootings in years past:

 April 2, 2012: One Goh killed seven people in a rampage at Oikos University in California. The shooter, One Goh, was angry because administrators refused to grant him a full tuition refund after he dropped out of the nursing program, said Jongjin Kim, the Oikos University dean. Online records in the two Virginia localities show that, while Goh was there, he racked up tens of thousands in liens and judgments, including a $10,377 debt to SunTrust Bank in 2006. The Internal Revenue Service also issued tax liens against him in 2006 and 2009 totaling more than $23,000, though he apparently paid about $14,000 back in 2008, according to records. According to Gloucester County Court records, Capital One sued him for $985.96 on an unpaid credit card bill, plus court costs. The court issued a judgment against him on Dec. 9, 2011.

 Feb. 27, 2012: Three students were killed and two wounded in a shooting spree that started in a school cafeteria in Chardon, Ohio, as students waited for buses to other schools. Police have charged T.J. Lane, who was 17 at the time, as an adult.

Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Ill., fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide.

April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, then killed himself.

Oct. 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, shot to death five girls at West Nickel Mines Amish School in Pennsylvania, then killed himself.

Notice the recurring theme of mental illness among the shooters. I believe the vast majority of shooting enthusiasts are level headed, patriotic, law abiding citizens, like me.
Many more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents than shootings. Should we outlaw automobiles? Or regulate the loose nuts behind the steering wheels?

Adam Lanza was the troubled gunman at the Newton, Connecticut elementary school killed 26 people, 20 of them children, and himself on Friday. He was known as "gothic, a loner, anti-social, borderline autistic."
Here is a look at some other school shootings in years past:

 April 2, 2012: One Goh killed seven people in a rampage at Oikos University in California. The shooter, One Goh, was angry because administrators refused to grant him a full tuition refund after he dropped out of the nursing program, said Jongjin Kim, the Oikos University dean. Online records in the two Virginia localities show that, while Goh was there, he racked up tens of thousands in liens and judgments, including a $10,377 debt to SunTrust Bank in 2006. The Internal Revenue Service also issued tax liens against him in 2006 and 2009 totaling more than $23,000, though he apparently paid about $14,000 back in 2008, according to records. According to Gloucester County Court records, Capital One sued him for $985.96 on an unpaid credit card bill, plus court costs. The court issued a judgment against him on Dec. 9, 2011.

 Feb. 27, 2012: Three students were killed and two wounded in a shooting spree that started in a school cafeteria in Chardon, Ohio, as students waited for buses to other schools. Police have charged T.J. Lane, who was 17 at the time, as an adult.

Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Ill., fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide.

April 16, 2007: Seung-Hui Cho, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, then killed himself.

Oct. 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, shot to death five girls at West Nickel Mines Amish School in Pennsylvania, then killed himself.

Notice the recurring theme of mental illness among the shooters. I believe the vast majority of shooting enthusiasts are level headed, patriotic, law abiding citizens, like me.
Many more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents than shootings. Should we outlaw automobiles? Or regulate the loose nuts behind the steering wheels?

add in Jared Loughner as a mentally ill shooter.


also note that the One Goh shooting got almost no media attention.  the victims werent white.  think on that.


its only a tragedy if it happens to white people.  not trying to start anything racial, but the media definitely plays this angle. 

Meanwhile, a very dear friend of mine was honorably discharged from the Navy for mental health reasons... geez, about 20 years ago now. Diagnosed mildly bi-polar at the time and declared partially disabled by fault of the Navy. I don't know all the details.

He can't buy firearms. Even though he is known by the folks around where he lives as an excellent gunsmith, reloader and a man of good character he fails the federal background check. There is nothing else on his record - no crimes of any kind.

So the federal background check system works. If a person who was "known" to be mentally unstable by the locals passes a federal background check it isn't because the Federal system doesn't work. Its because that person never made it into the mental health system deeply enough to be reported. That is not a simple issue to resolve as there are many reasons people don't make it that deeply into the system: protective parents and counselors, mild instability being seen as a personal issue and not a potential threat, avoiding the expense of treatment, etc.

Meanwhile, a very dear friend of mine was honorably discharged from the Navy for mental health reasons... geez, about 20 years ago now. Diagnosed mildly bi-polar at the time and declared partially disabled by fault of the Navy. I don't know all the details.

He can't buy firearms. Even though he is known by the folks around where he lives as an excellent gunsmith, reloader and a man of good character he fails the federal background check. There is nothing else on his record - no crimes of any kind.

So the federal background check system works. If a person who was "known" to be mentally unstable by the locals passes a federal background check it isn't because the Federal system doesn't work. Its because that person never made it into the mental health system deeply enough to be reported. That is not a simple issue to resolve as there are many reasons people don't make it that deeply into the system: protective parents and counselors, mild instability being seen as a personal issue and not a potential threat, avoiding the expense of treatment, etc.

Has he ever tried to dispute that?  This is exactly my concern with more stringent mental health requirements; just because some quack Navy therapist says something doesn't make it so.  I'd just like to see a higher standard for revoking gun rights than that some doctor somewhere signed a form.  Maybe that already exists, I don't know.  I'm interested in learning more about it.

For various reasons he hasn't. I can say that the Navy's analysis was warranted. Revoking his gun ownership rights wasn't exactly fair but he does have a legitimate mental health record. From the Navy, at least.

Just to thicken the plot, though, part of that record includes being arrested by some policemen who decided they didn't like him. The man is eccentric but not any kind of threat. These 2 cops actually found him when they were off duty and beat him.

A few weeks later with no warrant or evidence they declared he was a suspect in a murder case that was decades old, declared him insane and dangerous and admitted him against his will to a mental ward where he was heavily sedated and restrained. No charges were ever filed but it took the hospital about 2 months to realize he was eccentric but normal. Mental health diagnosis and treatment is an amorphous beast: because they were told he was insane and dangerous they interpreted his words and actions accordingly. Really he was a fairly normal guy who was incensed by being unfairly treated and held against his will for no (good) reason. All because he made a couple beat cops nervous by being different.

He has mental health issues. He is, however, functional and not dangerous. There are MANY who fall into that same category. Should one's firearms rights be revoked if you have a nervous breakdown after a divorce? A bout with depression after a parent or child dies? Seek counseling after being raped? Attend AA or NA meetings? If you were declared ADHD in school? If you make some counselor a little nervous because you are intelligent and question the system's assumptions about itself?

For various reasons he hasn't. I can say that the Navy's analysis was warranted. Revoking his gun ownership rights wasn't exactly fair but he does have a legitimate mental health record. From the Navy, at least.

Just to thicken the plot, though, part of that record includes being arrested by some policemen who decided they didn't like him. The man is eccentric but not any kind of threat. These 2 cops actually found him when they were off duty and beat him.

A few weeks later with no warrant or evidence they declared he was a suspect in a murder case that was decades old, declared him insane and dangerous and admitted him against his will to a mental ward where he was heavily sedated and restrained. No charges were ever filed but it took the hospital about 2 months to realize he was eccentric but normal. Mental health diagnosis and treatment is an amorphous beast: because they were told he was insane and dangerous they interpreted his words and actions accordingly. Really he was a fairly normal guy who was incensed by being unfairly treated and held against his will for no (good) reason. All because he made a couple beat cops nervous by being different.

He has mental health issues. He is, however, functional and not dangerous. There are MANY who fall into that same category. Should one's firearms rights be revoked if you have a nervous breakdown after a divorce? A bout with depression after a parent or child dies? Seek counseling after being raped? Attend AA or NA meetings? If you were declared ADHD in school? If you make some counselor a little nervous because you are intelligent and question the system's assumptions about itself?

That's what I'm afraid of.  Psychiatrists are a gun-loathing lot, in general.  What are we going to do when we pass gun legislation stating that no one can own a firearm who has a mental health defect, and the next volume of the DSM comes out with a new entry for "hoplophilia", a dangerous condition where patients demonstrate an affinity for firearms and ammunition? 

My opinion is I believe what becomes important relating to "mental illnesses" and related mental health issues is whether or not an individual is currently taking anti-depressants or what may be considered "anti-psychosis" drugs.  I have a very negative view toward those types of medications.  Especially when there are numerous commercials viewed daily on any public station ending with the warning, "Please call your doctor if you have any thoughts or tendencies of suicide as this can be a very dangerous side effect."  As has been stated many times throughout this forum already, many of these villains are known to have "mental illnesses" and were taking some sort of anti-depressant or anti-psychosis medication.  I would support a law that restricts patients taking these types of medications be denied access to firearms of all types.

It also doesn't help that with the expansion of 24 hour media coverage, the internet, cable & satellite television, etc., more and more of these types of occurrences are being reported and read by the general public.  I don't believe that gun violence is truly "on the rise (neither does the AP:  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/no-rise-mass-killings-their-impact-huge).  I just feel that the media picks and chooses which gun related tragedy they want to make viral.  How many gun related deaths go unreported in LA, Detroit, Illinois, DC, etc.?  But it's tragedies like these that get the most attention, and rightly so.  But I don't agree with anti-gun lobbyists using a tragedy such as this to advance their anti-gun agendas and at the same time use emotion to sway the public's perception on gun laws, safety, responsibility and ownership.

I also don't enjoy the reclassification of a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .233/5.56NATO into a category conveniently called "assault weapon" when there's no technical evidence as to what an "assault weapon" truly is.  Just because an AR-15 happens to look like an M16 doesn't make so.  Do you call a cubic zirconia a diamond on the premise that it LOOKS like one?

i have been saying instead of "assault weapon ban"
they should be saying "scary looking weapon ban"
that's all it is

My opinion is I believe what becomes important relating to "mental illnesses" and related mental health issues is whether or not an individual is currently taking anti-depressants or what may be considered "anti-psychosis" drugs.  I have a very negative view toward those types of medications.  Especially when there are numerous commercials viewed daily on any public station ending with the warning, "Please call your doctor if you have any thoughts or tendencies of suicide as this can be a very dangerous side effect."  As has been stated many times throughout this forum already, many of these villains are known to have "mental illnesses" and were taking some sort of anti-depressant or anti-psychosis medication.  I would support a law that restricts patients taking these types of medications be denied access to firearms of all types.

It also doesn't help that with the expansion of 24 hour media coverage, the internet, cable & satellite television, etc., more and more of these types of occurrences are being reported and read by the general public.  I don't believe that gun violence is truly "on the rise (neither does the AP:  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/no-rise-mass-killings-their-impact-huge).  I just feel that the media picks and chooses which gun related tragedy they want to make viral.  How many gun related deaths go unreported in LA, Detroit, Illinois, DC, etc.?  But it's tragedies like these that get the most attention, and rightly so.  But I don't agree with anti-gun lobbyists using a tragedy such as this to advance their anti-gun agendas and at the same time use emotion to sway the public's perception on gun laws, safety, responsibility and ownership.

I also don't enjoy the reclassification of a semi-automatic rifle chambered in .233/5.56NATO into a category conveniently called "assault weapon" when there's no technical evidence as to what an "assault weapon" truly is.  Just because an AR-15 happens to look like an M16 doesn't make so.  Do you call a cubic zirconia a diamond on the premise that it LOOKS like one?

i have been saying instead of "assault weapon ban"
they should be saying "scary looking weapon ban"
that's all it is

Touche

That's what I'm afraid of.  Psychiatrists are a gun-loathing lot, in general.  What are we going to do when we pass gun legislation stating that no one can own a firearm who has a mental health defect, and the next volume of the DSM comes out with a new entry for "hoplophilia", a dangerous condition where patients demonstrate an affinity for firearms and ammunition?

This is an extremely important and relevant point to consider in the big picture. Once the door is opened, it becomes harder to shut. Maybe addressing why so many kids and young adults are on all of these meds is a far better place to begin the discussion.

IMO it is the meds.

If I may, I would like to add my $.02 to this conversation. Now I fully understand the stance that mental health is a contributing factor to most of the mass shooting as of late, but I believe we need to take a look at the media. I am not saying only t.v. and  movies, but video games and the news as well.

It is true violence has been in movies for a long time, and I believe movies in the 70's and 80's were some of the goriest the I can remember (more cut aways now days, except Tarentino), but back then most of our parents took the time to be interested in what we watched. There was some sort of "guidance" when we went to see these movies. Now parents don't seem to take the time. Case in point, watching parents buy tickets for young teenagers to are recent movie (yes Tarentino) and letting them go unattended to watch it while they went to another. My point is not only that these movies are violent, but no guidence.

This action is repeated on the video game front as well. Ma and Pa buy little Johnny the game because this what he wants, and it will possible shut him up so they can get some rest (I know a little extreme, but you get the point). So little Johnny is blasting away, in a first person perspective, people and things that offend him. He's yelling and screaming death threats over the internet, experencing the gratification of "killing" that one person who has been blowing him up all night, again without guidence.

The news is not any better. What sells, that's right death. The news is free, you can flip it on 24/7. They will have a video of a young girl bleeding out after being shot in the chest for you to watch 100 time within the hour, with just the warning "images may be graphic, please look away if you are sensitive to this time of media." Now what kid who has been watching violent movies and play violent video game is going to turn the channel...now they can watch it live.

Now mom and dad can't be around all the time, but little Johnny has now become so desensitized to death and dismemberment, through the other forms of media and no guidence, that this doesn't bother him. Some of these people see themselves through the first person shooters that they play, taking action on any situation as they do on the video games, heck maybe thinking they are the video game character.

Firearms and mental health issues have been around for milennia, but what in our society has changed.... media and our complacency tword the violence in it.

This action is repeated on the video game front as well. Ma and Pa buy little Johnny the game because this what he wants, and it will possible shut him up so they can get some rest (I know a little extreme, but you get the point). So little Johnny is blasting away, in a first person perspective, people and things that offend him. He's yelling and screaming death threats over the internet, experencing the gratification of "killing" that one person who has been blowing him up all night, again without guidence.

and that's why violent crime has been consistently dropping every year since 2000 when first person shooters started exploding in popularity when the Xbox made it feasible and affordable?


there has been no connection between actual violence and video games.  cmon.  if you're going to grasp for a scapegoat, dont pick the one that was so dumb even the mainstream media ditched it 5 years ago.

IMO it is the meds.

I agree with Heavies. I think the psychiatric drugs are what brings these kids over the edge, commit homicide and suicide.

and that's why violent crime has been consistently dropping every year since 2000 when first person shooters started exploding in popularity when the Xbox made it feasible and affordable?


there has been no connection between actual violence and video games.  cmon.  if you're going to grasp for a scapegoat, dont pick the one that was so dumb even the mainstream media ditched it 5 years ago.

You make a good point, research has shown that violence in video games won't make a person commit violent crimes, I will go even further by saying violence in the movies and on TV will not cause people to commit mass murders and rapes (which I thought I did by saying I though movies were much more gory in the past). The point I was trying to make was that there isn't the guidence from our parents as there was in the past. I have worked as a teacher for the last 11 yrs and in this time have noted the involvement of parents fading in their own childs education. If you believe that a child is born with all the internal knowledge of what is right and wrong then stop reading here, the rest of this would not interest you. But I am in the belief that it takes a village to raise a child and they learn from who they are with. Teachers have now been tasked, not to only be educators but parents too, the only problem is we are not the child's parent. Heck, we as educators are struggling enough trying just to educate the children (a topic for another forum lol). The children need guidence and to be taught what is right and wrong, what is beautiful and what is ugly. Lines can sometimes get blurred when trying to figure this out on there own. Yes, some do fall through, and it is probably some of these people that end up doing the wrong things.

Lets look at the big picture, yes video games do not cause violence, some research show that for some people it may even let out aggression, but the notion of desensitization toward violence is there. There was a video series back in the 80's called "Faces of Death", which depicted different scenes of real death taking place. People were getting physically ill watch that film. By today's standards, those scenes take place on CNN nightly. In Africa most people do not have access to violent media, but violence is all around them, they too have been desensitized to this violence, and mass killings take place and are talked about as everyday occurrence. Desensitization toward violence is here in our society, there is no turning back, but what we can do is guide our youth and make sure they understand that this is real and there is no off button when you are done. (goes both for video games an TV)

No scapegoats here, I am not advocating the removal or banning of anything. What I am doing here is trying to offer suggestions. I don't have the answer, but maybe with enough suggestion or opinions we can get past this knee jerk reaction to ban or outright defend everything and anything.

clshade has a very good point: " There are MANY who fall into that same category. Should one's firearms rights be revoked if you have a nervous breakdown after a divorce? A bout with depression after a parent or child dies? Seek counseling after being raped? Attend AA or NA meetings? If you were declared ADHD in school? If you make some counselor a little nervous because you are intelligent and question the system's assumptions about itself?" As a former Army Ranger, we did some things that would be considered, um, "anti-social" by certain psychiatrists . . . And I also must agree that the DSM may soon include an affinity for firearms as a diagnosable condition. What if I piss off some "therapist," or counselor, and they decide I am on the black list? Try and get that off your medical/mental health records. If I carry a large knife under my car seat, does that make me suspect? Not that I would ever do that, of course . . . when I have room for my .357!
   Chicago is famous for disarming its citizens; it has some of the toughest gun laws in the USA. Chicago also has the highest murder rate in the US.  Lesson learned.
For my non-health care brothers/sisters: The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States. It is intended to be applicable in a wide array of contexts and used by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/systems). It is published by the American Psychiatric Association.
Merry Christmas!