Ban knives, save lives...where was the "assault" rifle in these killings

[billc]

Hmmmm...you can ban "assault" rifles all day long, and killers are still going to kill...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

BEIJING (AP) -- A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.
The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.
The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.

 

[MJS]

You're 110% correct. Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it. However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help? Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best. I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything. I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis. So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You're 110% correct. Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it. However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help? Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best. I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything. I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis. So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?

I think it is clear that we fail as a society at identifying those who have serious mental issues that could reasonably cause a person to pose a threat to themselves or others.

On the other hand, I do not think it is something that can be easily diagnosed or recognized in many cases. People who have mental problems are not generally dangerous, sometimes even those who seem like they might be.

And we also have the complicating issue in the USA of the right to be free. Unless a person has done something illegal, it's not against the law to be insane, and involuntary commitment is something of a double-edged sword. The courts are reticent to do it without clear and convincing evidence that is sometimes just not present that a person is a real threat to others. In general, I'm glad it's not that easy to just toss people into loony bins; the Soviet Union proved that this can easily become a convenient way of warehousing one's enemies.

It's not easy, there are no easy answers. And in the end, although it is deeply unsatisfying to say so, I suspect we're pretty much as far down the road of dropping nets on people for being dangerous lunatics as we want to be as a society. That does mean that sometimes undetected loonies do horrible things. Wish I had a better answer.

But let's be honest. As much as the medical and scientific understanding of mental health issues has advanced, it's still not even as accurate as the weatherman. Now imagine that every time the weatherman says it is going to rain and it doesn't, some innocent person gets locked up in a mental institution. That's about what you'd have. Lots of bad diagnosis leading to people having their freedom stripped from them for the crime of having mental health problems and NOT being a danger to others. Yeah, you'd get the dangerous ones too, but at what cost?

 

[oftheherd1]

You're 110% correct. Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it. However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help? Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best. I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything. I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis. So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?

Good point. It would seem that they are only sticking their finger in the dam so to speak. And I think those places that go a little above and beyond, stop at that for many reasons.

 

[MJS]

I think it is clear that we fail as a society at identifying those who have serious mental issues that could reasonably cause a person to pose a threat to themselves or others.

True, however, I'd imagine there's records on file of those that have issues, that are currently working with some sort of team of doctors.

On the other hand, I do not think it is something that can be easily diagnosed or recognized in many cases. People who have mental problems are not generally dangerous, sometimes even those who seem like they might be.

True, there are varying degrees. Apparently the CO shooter was showing some sort of sign that was recognized, yet that person failed to act.

And we also have the complicating issue in the USA of the right to be free. Unless a person has done something illegal, it's not against the law to be insane, and involuntary commitment is something of a double-edged sword. The courts are reticent to do it without clear and convincing evidence that is sometimes just not present that a person is a real threat to others. In general, I'm glad it's not that easy to just toss people into loony bins; the Soviet Union proved that this can easily become a convenient way of warehousing one's enemies.

Out of curiosity, did the CO shooter do anything prior to the theater incident? I do see your point Bill, however, if in fact someone hasn't committed any crimes, yet is showing signs of being violent, etc, then IMO, that should be reason enough, the right to be free aside. Then again, many of the regulars that the cops deal with where I work, have all done something, be it an actual crime, being out of control, talking about hurting themselves, actual attempts on their own life, etc.

It's not easy, there are no easy answers. And in the end, although it is deeply unsatisfying to say so, I suspect we're pretty much as far down the road of dropping nets on people for being dangerous lunatics as we want to be as a society. That does mean that sometimes undetected loonies do horrible things. Wish I had a better answer.

But let's be honest. As much as the medical and scientific understanding of mental health issues has advanced, it's still not even as accurate as the weatherman. Now imagine that every time the weatherman says it is going to rain and it doesn't, some innocent person gets locked up in a mental institution. That's about what you'd have. Lots of bad diagnosis leading to people having their freedom stripped from them for the crime of having mental health problems and NOT being a danger to others. Yeah, you'd get the dangerous ones too, but at what cost?

Sad but true. I think that this issue is just like all of the other issues, such as the war on drugs and the war on terror. Some gains are made, but the problem as a whole, is just too big to really make an impact.

 

[Wo Fat]

You're 110% correct. Its just like I've said in other topics, in which people try to ban certain things, ie: fattening food from kids, fact is, the kids will still get it. However, if someone is aware that someone is a nut or has the potential to be a nut, why not try to get this person some help? Now, granted, the help thats available may not always be the best. I mean, we call the Crisis tems all the time for the 'regulars' that we deal with in the city, yet I have to wonder whether or not they're actually doing anything. I say that, because more times than not, we're calling the team for the same person on a very regular basis. So, it begs the question....are they really helping the person, is the person beyond help?

Well said. It seems that we, as as society, have been in a decades-long rut of criminalizing people who otherwise needed psychiatric help. We seem to have lost our way. We either expect people to pay $80 an hour for the help they may need or we wait for their anti-social behavior to manifest ... and then the solution is easy: we lock 'em up.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

True, however, I'd imagine there's records on file of those that have issues, that are currently working with some sort of team of doctors.

There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US. With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement. They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society. And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?

With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not. There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.

True, there are varying degrees. Apparently the CO shooter was showing some sort of sign that was recognized, yet that person failed to act.

I don't think we have all the information yet, but from what I've read, it appears he was under treatment. And, he sufficiently alarmed the person treating him that she sent a request to her peers, per university policy, requesting a round-table discussion to decide what should be done. Prior to that happening, the alleged shooter left school. Once no longer a student, the person treating him had no authority to do anything at all. Whether or not that person should have reported him to the civil authorities is unknown. What the authorities could have done about it is unknown. I do not know. I also do not think we're likely to come up with an 'aha!' and see clearly what needs to be done to stop these kinds of issues in the future. I just don't think it's that easy.

Out of curiosity, did the CO shooter do anything prior to the theater incident? I do see your point Bill, however, if in fact someone hasn't committed any crimes, yet is showing signs of being violent, etc, then IMO, that should be reason enough, the right to be free aside. Then again, many of the regulars that the cops deal with where I work, have all done something, be it an actual crime, being out of control, talking about hurting themselves, actual attempts on their own life, etc.

From what I've read, he sent a detailed letter describing exactly what he planned to do to his therapist, but the package sat unopened in the university mail system until after the shooting. Until then, I do not know.

Sad but true. I think that this issue is just like all of the other issues, such as the war on drugs and the war on terror. Some gains are made, but the problem as a whole, is just too big to really make an impact.

If we could know with any kind of certainty who is likely to become violent, we could protect society much better than we currently do. But I do not think it is possible to know much more than we already do about who is likely to represent a threat to us. And if we move very far into the realm of "Well, he MIGHT be dangerous, better do something now," we begin locking people up for crimes they would never have committed. Not really the America I want to live in.

We will never be safe as long as we are free. I will not willingly trade freedom for safety. That's an unfortunate fact of life, and I wish it wasn't such a brutal reality, but I think it is. We can juggle around the parameters, but in the end, more safety nearly always means less freedom. How much freedom do we trade away?

 

[mxav]

Hmmmm...you can ban "assault" rifles all day long, and killers are still going to kill...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

and ban hammers and screwdrivers and pens all at the same time, you still don't an automatic weapon to hunt. A softball sized hole from a shotgun is fine. What is your obsession with automatics, other than fear mongering?

 

[MJS]

There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US. With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement. They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society. And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?

Under normal circumstances, I could agree with that. However, knowing that someone is a ticking time bomb, and not saying anything because of some ******** privacy policy....sorry, I disagree with that.

With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not. There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.

True.

I don't think we have all the information yet, but from what I've read, it appears he was under treatment. And, he sufficiently alarmed the person treating him that she sent a request to her peers, per university policy, requesting a round-table discussion to decide what should be done. Prior to that happening, the alleged shooter left school. Once no longer a student, the person treating him had no authority to do anything at all. Whether or not that person should have reported him to the civil authorities is unknown. What the authorities could have done about it is unknown. I do not know. I also do not think we're likely to come up with an 'aha!' and see clearly what needs to be done to stop these kinds of issues in the future. I just don't think it's that easy.

True. I guess I was just thinking that it'd make sense, whether the guy left school or not, to notify someone, if they felt he was that much of a threat. Wishful thinking on my part I suppose.

From what I've read, he sent a detailed letter describing exactly what he planned to do to his therapist, but the package sat unopened in the university mail system until after the shooting. Until then, I do not know.

Same here.

If we could know with any kind of certainty who is likely to become violent, we could protect society much better than we currently do. But I do not think it is possible to know much more than we already do about who is likely to represent a threat to us. And if we move very far into the realm of "Well, he MIGHT be dangerous, better do something now," we begin locking people up for crimes they would never have committed. Not really the America I want to live in.

We will never be safe as long as we are free. I will not willingly trade freedom for safety. That's an unfortunate fact of life, and I wish it wasn't such a brutal reality, but I think it is. We can juggle around the parameters, but in the end, more safety nearly always means less freedom. How much freedom do we trade away?

Which is why I've came to accept that the world we live in is ****ed up and will continue to be ****ed up.

 

[billc]

Does anyone know of a study that looks at violent crimes and criminals who were under treatment at the time they committed that crime? How about mass murderers and wether they were under treatment at the time? I would be interesting to know how often these guys are actually seeking help before they cross the line. It would also give perspective on how bad the problem really is. It would also be interesting to know what kind of violent crimes people in treatment actually commit. Are they more likely to hurt family (probably), do they tend to harm more than one person at a time?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Under normal circumstances, I could agree with that. However, knowing that someone is a ticking time bomb, and not saying anything because of some ******** privacy policy....sorry, I disagree with that.

All I'm saying is that I do not know how a mental health professional knows that a given person is a 'ticking time bomb' and I do not know what the authorities can do about such a person even if it is reported to them, so long as he or she has not committed a crime (yet). I get that it's bad. I just don't see a simple solution, and I don't think that doctors and police are intentionally ignoring problems. I think everyone is doing the best they can to respect both privacy/liberty requirements and public safety needs.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Does anyone know of a study that looks at violent crimes and criminals who were under treatment at the time they committed that crime? How about mass murderers and wether they were under treatment at the time? I would be interesting to know how often these guys are actually seeking help before they cross the line. It would also give perspective on how bad the problem really is. It would also be interesting to know what kind of violent crimes people in treatment actually commit. Are they more likely to hurt family (probably), do they tend to harm more than one person at a time?

I do not know of any, but I also do not know how such information would be gained, other than by the criminal in question volunteering it. There is no database of people who see a doctor or therapist for mental or emotional health issues. In some states, therapists don't even have to be licensed. And you have the gamut of therapy from psychology to psychiatry, and all of it is based on theory that no one claims is extremely effective at identifying who might or might not be dangerous now or in the future.

I've got a personal stake in this. I am involved in a family matter with a family member who makes all sorts of threats to certain people, but denies having made them when contacted by law enforcement or mental health officials. He can turn it on and off at will. Despite the fact that certain people do feel he is a danger to himself and others, what is it you think the police should be able to do to him? It's frustrating; no one wants a tragedy, but if he could just be involuntarily locked up because some family member said he made a threat, how much would that be abused? NO easy answers. Sorry.

 

[MJS]

All I'm saying is that I do not know how a mental health professional knows that a given person is a 'ticking time bomb' and I do not know what the authorities can do about such a person even if it is reported to them, so long as he or she has not committed a crime (yet). I get that it's bad. I just don't see a simple solution, and I don't think that doctors and police are intentionally ignoring problems. I think everyone is doing the best they can to respect both privacy/liberty requirements and public safety needs.

Well, like I said Bill, I'm not a mental health doctor, but all I'm saying is, one would assume or expect (yeah, I know, I may be wishing for the stars here..lol) that someone in that capacity would know any signs. Was this guy showing any signs? I got that impression from articles that I've read, but perhaps I was misunderstanding them.

What can be done if a crime hasn't been committed yet? See, this is just like everything else that happens in the world. We as a society get lax on certain things, then when something bad does happen, we all run around like crazy people, trying to 'fix' the problem, so it doesn't happen again.

And likewise, I don't see a solution either.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, like I said Bill, I'm not a mental health doctor, but all I'm saying is, one would assume or expect (yeah, I know, I may be wishing for the stars here..lol) that someone in that capacity would know any signs. Was this guy showing any signs? I got that impression from articles that I've read, but perhaps I was misunderstanding them.

What can be done if a crime hasn't been committed yet? See, this is just like everything else that happens in the world. We as a society get lax on certain things, then when something bad does happen, we all run around like crazy people, trying to 'fix' the problem, so it doesn't happen again.

And likewise, I don't see a solution either.

Here's one that self-identified yesterday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialpr...tid=450&articleid=20120802_11_A1_CUTLIN588297

Alleged threat on U.S. Rep. John Sullivan lands man in jail
By AMANDA BLAND World Staff Writer
Published: 8/2/2012 2:21 AM
Last Modified: 8/2/2012 7:28 AM

SKIATOOK - A man remains in custody after police say he entered the Skiatook police station and threatened to kill U.S. Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla.


Wayne Franklin Miles, 52, entered the police station at 11:50 p.m. July 22, an administrative assistant to Tulsa County Sheriff's Office spokesman Sgt. Shannon Clark said. The first public court records in the case were filed Wednesday.

Miles complained that Sullivan was "doing some far-fetched things ... and said he was going to harm the congressman," FBI Special Agent Clay Simmonds said.

Miles asked to speak with an officer and accused Sullivan of putting a "hit" out on his life, the assistant said.

The officer arrested Miles with the belief he posed an immediate danger, and he was taken to the Tulsa Jail, authorities said.

Skiatook police detectives questioned Miles the next morning, and he reiterated his belief that he was being watched and shot at, according to an affidavit by Officer Jerry Bullard. He said "he would protect himself and would shoot (Sullivan)," Bullard wrote.

Miles also indicated that he was a certified armed guard and that he carried weapons in his vehicle, according to the affidavit.

Bullard wrote in the affidavit that he believes that Miles is "mentally unstable and is in possession of a firearm or firearms and would be capable of carrying out the threat of death or serious bodily harm to Congressman John Sullivan or someone believed to be Congressman John Sullivan if he had the means."

Upon serving a search warrant at Miles' home in the 3300 block of East 176th Street North, police found weapons that include a shotgun, several rifles, fighting knives and an AK 47-type bayonet as well as more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a body armor vest and a Ku Klux Klan pamphlet, court documents show.

Miles posted bond and was released from state custody but was later arrested on federal complaints by the FBI, Simmonds said.

This is a pretty clear case of a person whose mental issues make themselves clear. He broke the law by issuing a threat, and it wasn't a case of hearsay, he went to the police to utter his threat.

But suppose he had said it to a therapist or an attorney or a priest under the seal of confession? All have a requirement to report such things if certain conditions are met, but it still comes to them deciding for themselves what constitutes a credible threat and what doesn't. And let's say he had said it to a therapist and the therapist in turn reports it to the police. They go to the guy's house and interviews him, and he is nice as pie and says he never said that. Now what?

In any case, I'm glad they caught this nutbar. But he had to go and commit a crime (threatening to kill someone) in the presence of the police before they could act.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's another champion from yesterday. Man, is it a full moon or what?

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...reatening-cursing-at-movie-patrons-78397.html

Kyle Tanner arrested, accused of threatening, cursing at movie patrons
August 2, 2012 - 11:38 am

A man who began shouting, cursing and simulating the firing of a gun inside an Annapolis movie theater on Wednesday was arrested and faces multiple charges, Anne Arundel County Police officials say.
View attachment $kyle-tanner-aacopd_296.jpg
Authorities say that just before 4 p.m. Wednesday, officers responded to the Bow Tie Cinemas at the Annapolis Harbour Center on reports of disorderly conduct. Upon arrival, witnesses described a scene in which a man, later identified as 25-year-old Kyle Nolan Tanner, entered a screening room, sat down in the front row and began yelling obscenities toward the screen and people in the theater.

Witnesses say he then left the theater twice, and when he returned for a final time, he began pointing at people in the theater as if he had a gun. That's when many of the patrons inside fled.

 

[Wo Fat]

There is a right to privacy for certain things in the US. With regard to lawyer-client, patient-doctor, and discussions with clergy under the seal of confession, such conversations are privileged and are not reported to central authorities or law enforcement. They're not logged in a database somewhere for others to access to determine who is and who is not a threat to society. And would we want to live in such a society if such was the case?

With regard to those who have mental health issues, there are guidelines that mental health professionals are expected to adhere to - but much of this left to the discretion of the doctor, and just like car mechanics, what one thinks of as a problem, another might not. There is no universal and generic guide to 'this is dangerous and must be reported' and 'this is not dangerous'.



I don't think we have all the information yet, but from what I've read, it appears he was under treatment. And, he sufficiently alarmed the person treating him that she sent a request to her peers, per university policy, requesting a round-table discussion to decide what should be done. Prior to that happening, the alleged shooter left school. Once no longer a student, the person treating him had no authority to do anything at all. Whether or not that person should have reported him to the civil authorities is unknown. What the authorities could have done about it is unknown. I do not know. I also do not think we're likely to come up with an 'aha!' and see clearly what needs to be done to stop these kinds of issues in the future. I just don't think it's that easy.



From what I've read, he sent a detailed letter describing exactly what he planned to do to his therapist, but the package sat unopened in the university mail system until after the shooting. Until then, I do not know.



If we could know with any kind of certainty who is likely to become violent, we could protect society much better than we currently do. But I do not think it is possible to know much more than we already do about who is likely to represent a threat to us. And if we move very far into the realm of "Well, he MIGHT be dangerous, better do something now," we begin locking people up for crimes they would never have committed. Not really the America I want to live in.

We will never be safe as long as we are free. I will not willingly trade freedom for safety. That's an unfortunate fact of life, and I wish it wasn't such a brutal reality, but I think it is. We can juggle around the parameters, but in the end, more safety nearly always means less freedom. How much freedom do we trade away?

Everything you say is true, Bill. That said--and I have no idea where you stand on this--what about applying similar provisions of the Patriot Act? I'm somewhat aware of the intrusive provisions of the Act, and would agree with many who are opposed. At the same time, it's intent to protect against the kind of terrorism that a James Holmes would carry out.

Thoughts on that?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Everything you say is true, Bill. That said--and I have no idea where you stand on this--what about applying similar provisions of the Patriot Act? I'm somewhat aware of the intrusive provisions of the Act, and would agree with many who are opposed. At the same time, it's intent to protect against the kind of terrorism that a James Holmes would carry out.

Thoughts on that?

In the struggle between a safer society and a more free society, I tend to come down on the side of freedom. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act and many of its provisions. I am not a fan of living in a world where everyone has a bunker mentality. That's not freedom to me. As difficult as it is to accept that more freedom means more risk, I still prefer freedom. I understand that society must protect itself, but I think we're already straining the boundaries of a fair tradeoff between the one and the other. I'd rather we took a step or two back. Nothing drastic, just less intrusion. We'll get by somehow without the government listening to every phone call or knowing what books you read.

 

[granfire]

In the struggle between a safer society and a more free society, I tend to come down on the side of freedom. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act and many of its provisions. I am not a fan of living in a world where everyone has a bunker mentality. That's not freedom to me. As difficult as it is to accept that more freedom means more risk, I still prefer freedom. I understand that society must protect itself, but I think we're already straining the boundaries of a fair tradeoff between the one and the other. I'd rather we took a step or two back. Nothing drastic, just less intrusion. We'll get by somehow without the government listening to every phone call or knowing what books you read.

But you are not really free when you have to look over your shoulder all the time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But you are not really free when you have to look over your shoulder all the time.

What is the alternative? No amount of security can provide guaranteed safety. And at a certain point, there is no longer even the shadow of freedom remaining.

Nor is any society 100% free. Any rules, any laws, require people to give up some amount of personal freedom. Everything is a compromise. But in societies we see to regard as free (US, UK, much of the Western world), the compromise tends to swing towards more personal freedom and less state-supplied security.

And not to be bombastic, but there are plenty of countries where one can go and have more authoritarian state control over liberty and less danger - one could always choose to go and live there. I would not want to live in such a country, but that's just me.

 

[granfire]

What is the alternative? No amount of security can provide guaranteed safety. And at a certain point, there is no longer even the shadow of freedom remaining.

Nor is any society 100% free. Any rules, any laws, require people to give up some amount of personal freedom. Everything is a compromise. But in societies we see to regard as free (US, UK, much of the Western world), the compromise tends to swing towards more personal freedom and less state-supplied security.

And not to be bombastic, but there are plenty of countries where one can go and have more authoritarian state control over liberty and less danger - one could always choose to go and live there. I would not want to live in such a country, but that's just me.

It's the mind set that preceeds control.
'With more discipline comes more freedom'
A somewhat confusing statement, I heard many years ago a dancer utter as he prepared himself for one of the leading roles in a major musical production.
Sadly, in general, as a whole, the US is pretty undisciplined. If it feels good, do it, screw the neighbor.
That is part of the entitlement to let your dogs roam whenever you please, to ignore common sense like texting while driving.

Certainly some 'freedoms' get curtailed. But they always have, when it benefits the society.In many places using a hand held device becomes illegal these days, because too many people abuse the possibility.

Owning gun might still be a right, but in most places it is no longer a necessity. (after having heard in the news about a 16 year old accidentally shooting a younger sibling...really, we need more guns, right?)
But leaving guns out in the hands of some individuals is very detrimental to society. I mean, seriously, there are plenty of people out there who should not own a water pistol!

However, trusting in my good fortune, I am not even arguing that - for now.

The problem is that even when a problem arises it is not properly addressed until the excrement hist the air movement apperatus.

People who are nucking futs should not be roaming the streets, not with a assault rifle, not even with a butter knife!

When I was in middle school, a student teacher went nuts and killed a girl our age with a hammer. The guy worked at our school, the girls were gaga over him....BAM. he smashed the skull of a young girl in (it was in a different town, but still) my class mates who had him were devastated.
Now, this guy didn't go to jail. because he was as it turned out, gaga. Last i heard over 10 years ago or so, he was in a forensic mental ward, he is likely still there, until he is too infirm to harm anybody. That was in the 80s when guns were not as easy available in Germany as they are now with all the open boarders til the far reaches of Sibiria....


However... the hospital - the mental hospital - also had a ward for juveniles that had behavioral abnormalities.
Not sure what all the ranges were, from self mutilation to anger issues i am sure.

It is actually less a problem of keeping guns out of their hands as it is to get the help to them they need. And that does not seem to happen.

As I pointed out, people who can blow up into a murderous rampage are not best served in a jail. A secure hospital and medication under supervision of a specialized doctor work so much better. And it's safer for all involved....