Jump to content
SJG

Fl School Shooting & Mental Health

Recommended Posts

 Yesterday, I was 7 miles away from the site of the school shooting in Fl. In fact I was at a local range I frequent.  The focus in the local media here is on the mental health of the shooter. I may have missed it, but I did not see in any of the N.J. anti proposed gun bills anything about mental health. Was there anything? The perps of the vast majority of the school shootings had severe mental health issues.  Christy correctly referenced it several times when he vetoed gun legislation passed by the Dems. As expected, Murphy is using this incident as support for his agenda. Has he ever focused on the mental health issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 As far as I can recall, mental health was never specifically a focus of Gov Murphy's during the campaign or since. I do see one piece of proposed legislation --- when someone wants to have their mental health commitment expunged for the purpose of purchasing firearms, those cases are determined by a judge. The proposed legislation would involve LEO's in that decision process as well, putting forth the theory that LEO's might have more insight into that person's behavior in the community, etc.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/A1500/1010_I1.PDF

Of the many gun bills proposed, that's the only one I saw that had any kind of mental health angle to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, given that it looks like we have yet one more shooter on meds, and the LV shooter was on meds, what are my fellow 2a peeps feelings on regulations surrounding that? 

Should the 4473 be amended to make being on SSRIs or other specific prescription drugs a disqualifier just like illegal drug dependency? 

Should they be made schedule 1 drugs? Is there benefit worth the risk? 

Do you think more public funding of mental health care needs to be put back in place? I can tell you for a fact and from experience with a relative, that as public funding for care was reduced over a 20+ year span in NJ, the ability or willingness of judges to remand individuals arrested for their behavior to evaluation has dropped off significantly. Most families can't afford to get the people they know are a problem locked up for everyone's good, and there isn't much point going to the police or court to get permission to do so anyway if you can't foot the bill 100%. 

I don't like taxes in general, but there's taxes for the sake of lining people's pockets, and there are taxes everyone benefits from communally. Keeping certain fucker off your lawn, out of your schools, etc. is one of those valuable but invisible services IMO. I'd rather be paying for that than lining cronies' pockets for jack. I'd also rather not bypass the judge. Just set it up so that going to court over such things isn't a near guaranteed waste of everyone's time and money. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Should the 4473 be amended to make being on SSRIs or other specific prescription drugs a disqualifier just like illegal drug dependency? 

Interesting idea. I’m sure there are lots of concerns with that (due process, slippery slope, etc). It would be a way to identify and then request additional scrutiny (note from prescribing doctor, for example). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This  amending the 4473, like any other law change to further restrict gun possession is a slippery slope! Lets amend it to read anyone who takes medication for a condition of the brain cannot own guns..........So if you took an aspirin for a headache once, your fucked!

Amendments can easily be misinterpreted. If they can do it to the 2nd Amendment, they can do it with anything!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Glock guy said:

There is strong evidence that virtually all mass shooters are on psych meds. I think they need to figure out how to keep them away from guns, and leave the rest of us the F alone.

 

5 hours ago, raz-0 said:

So, given that it looks like we have yet one more shooter on meds, and the LV shooter was on meds, what are my fellow 2a peeps feelings on regulations surrounding that? 

Should the 4473 be amended to make being on SSRIs or other specific prescription drugs a disqualifier just like illegal drug dependency? 

Should they be made schedule 1 drugs? Is there benefit worth the risk?

Wait a minute, slow down there. So the "strong evidence" that mass shooters are on "psych meds" equals denying 2A rights to an entire population of people who might take/have taken an SSRI? Then, "the rest of us" can have our 2A rights? That's painting a fairly large population of people with a very broad brush in order to deny them a constitutional right. That sure sounds like something most of us rail against when it's applied to anyone who owns a gun.

Why is that acceptable while taking away everyone's 2A rights is not acceptable?

Who gets to decide the definition of "psych meds"? Do we have an age cut-off for these meds (like under the age of 30, 50, 60) or does it apply to everyone? Does it apply to someone who was taking a "psych med" for a short time for a specific reason? To someone who has been on a "psych med" for years and who has stayed stable and compliant? To someone whose medical doctor is willing to state that the person can safely own a firearm?

What happened to everyone who shouts that there can be no compromise because the anti-2As will just keep taking away our rights---the rights of every gun owner?

At this point it looks like some gun owners now find it acceptable to throw other gun owners under the bus. Most mass shooters are males (who may be taking "psych meds"), so maybe we should take the next logical step and ban all men from owning a gun.

Wow. Just wow.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m curious then what you suggest?  Because it is clear that there are a subset of people who should not have access to firearms. The problem is you cant tell who they are until something happens.  So what’s the solution?   No restrictions? Write off their attrocity as the cost of freedom? All restrictions?  Nobody can tell so nobody gets anything.  Or figuring out some way to identify,  intercede, and maybe restrict until that person gets help?   There is no good, or easy solution but you know you’re at the losing end of the argument if you can look at yesterday and think “yeah, I’m ok with him having access”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

There is strong evidence that virtually all mass shooters are on psych meds. I think they need to figure out how to keep them away from guns, and leave the rest of us the F alone.  

Not to mention that I recall reading somewhere once (wish I remembered where, exactly) that the negative side effects of SSRIs are worse when under a certain age (25, perhaps?) due to the still-physical development of the brain at that age.

The age range of these high-profile killers (I refuse to use the term “shooter” in this context) found to be taking these drugs all seem to fall within that dangerous side-effect spectrum...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NJBeretta said:

Not to mention that I recall reading somewhere once (wish I remembered where, exactly) that the negative side effects of SSRIs are worse when under a certain age (25, perhaps?) due to the still-physical development of the brain at that age.

The age range of these high-profile killers (I refuse to use the term “shooter” in this context) found to be taking these drugs all seem to fall within that dangerous side-effect spectrum...

You're correct about the age implication. I think research has found that the brain continues to develop until approximately age 24-years.

The Las Vegas killer was an outlier as he was older. People in the military are often younger and have firearms. I don't know the answer, but you are absolutely correct about the potential side-effects of SSRIs and younger adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, NJBeretta said:

Not to mention that I recall reading somewhere once (wish I remembered where, exactly) that the negative side effects of SSRIs are worse when under a certain age (25, perhaps?) due to the still-physical development of the brain at that age.

The age range of these high-profile killers (I refuse to use the term “shooter” in this context) found to be taking these drugs all seem to fall within that dangerous side-effect spectrum...

normally 35 or younger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

I’m curious then what you suggest?  Because it is clear that there are a subset of people who should not have access to firearms. The problem is you cant tell who they are until something happens.  So what’s the solution?   No restrictions? Write off their attrocity as the cost of freedom? All restrictions?  Nobody can tell so nobody gets anything.  Or figuring out some way to identify,  intercede, and maybe restrict until that person gets help?   There is no good, or easy solution but you know you’re at the losing end of the argument if you can look at yesterday and think “yeah, I’m ok with him having access”

No, I never implied that I was fine with what happened and I don't appreciate you even implying that. It's the method that is being suggested to deny access to which I object because it's no more logical than denying firearms for every citizen.

If most mass killers are males, are you prepared to give up your 2A rights? That is as logical as having everybody on medication give up their 2A rights, so is that okay with you? If it's not, what do you suggest?

I agree with you that mental health intervention is desperately needed. From what I've read, the shooter had known problems. He reportedly posted about violence and shooting people on public forums. He was expelled from school due to violence. Where was the communication? Why didn't anyone, including the school, report this to the police? A record check would have shown that he was a gun owner. Could his guns have been confiscated due to these red flags? I don't know the answer to that on a legal basis. But this POS showed the signs of needing serious help for at least over a year to many people (school officials and classmates) and nothing was said or done. So to your point, where was the needed intervention? Was he even on medication? I haven't seen any reports about that yet.

I am starting to see a pattern of lack of communication among officials: the military and civilian legal authorities, schools and legal authorities, etc. For God's sake, schools have to report the mere suspicion of child abuse if a student comes to school with bruises, why don't they have to report expulsion due to violence?

Maybe a place to start? All of this "see something, say something" crap is meaningless if even the public officials ignore it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gunsrlegal said:

No, I never implied that I was fine with what happened and I don't appreciate you even implying that. It's the method that is being suggested to deny access to which I object because it's no more logical than denying firearms for every citizen.

If most mass killers are males, are you prepared to give up your 2A rights? That is as logical as having everybody on medication give up their 2A rights, so is that okay with you? If it's not, what do you suggest?

I agree with you that mental health intervention is desperately needed. From what I've read, the shooter had known problems. He reportedly posted about violence and shooting people on public forums. He was expelled from school due to violence. Where was the communication? Why didn't anyone, including the school, report this to the police? A record check would have shown that he was a gun owner. Could his guns have been confiscated due to these red flags? I don't know the answer to that on a legal basis. But this POS showed the signs of needing serious help for at least over a year to many people (school officials and classmates) and nothing was said or done. So to your point, where was the needed intervention? Was he even on medication? I haven't seen any reports about that yet.

I am starting to see a pattern of lack of communication among officials: the military and civilian legal authorities, schools and legal authorities, etc. For God's sake, schools have to report the mere suspicion of child abuse if a student comes to school with bruises, why don't they have to report expulsion due to violence?

Maybe a place to start? All of this "see something, say something" crap is meaningless if even the public officials ignore it.

 

I used the term psych meds because the long list of shooters on psych meds were taking ssris and one other category I don't recall off the top of my head.

We already have a question on there that boils down to "if you are taking schedule one drugs or prescription drugs without a prescription or drink to much you can't buy guns." perhaps ssris need to be added to that explicitly or need to be moved to schedule one and thus included implicitly. They can cause suicidal ideation, sleep driving, sleep fucking and or rape, increased aggression, and other fun things.  Additionally, if you need them you probably have mental issues. If you need them to get over the hump while you develop coping skills for your issues and then stop you aren't prohibited anymore.  If you need them forever, well you are fucked, because they cause up regulation of serotonin receptors. You will constantly be ramping up and then at some point it won't work and you still need to be weened off. Unless your doc believes you need them too much. Then you get to have pseudo parkinsonian tremors, which continued use can make permanent. In which case you shouldn't be operating a firearm. If you are being prescribed them inappropriately, and don't really need them, you are at increased risk of the more weird ass side effects and should get off them. 

Should someone tripping balls be using firearms? No. Should someone at serious risk of being dissociated from reality because of their prescription meds? That answer may also need to be no. If a drug had narcolepsy like symptoms in 25% of users, should taking it disqualify you from operating a car on public roads? 

 

You have chronic depression needing ssris? Maybe funds aren't for you. You are well controlled on them? Well guess what, you keep on seeing the psychiatrist because your meds need constant adjusting. Well regulated still usually means that you start regressing or showing side effects due to dosing. When you can keep talking your meds and still fall off the wagon, perhaps life and death decisions aren't for you.

I've got a friend who has been on them for a long time. They keep asking to go shooting. I keep not taking them. They take their meds, see their therapist, get dosages adjusted etc. but they still are often not the one who notices they are getting depressed and out of control again. 

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me. And maybe the issue of ssris shouldn't be dealt with at the batfe end of things. Maybe it should be dealt with at the prescribing end and cracking down on how the medical industry uses them. Maybe it should be like pain meds and handing them out like candy should stop and the therapeutic use should narrow.

But maybe iatrogenic addiction to shit that can cause a psychotic break in some users should be considered disqualifying.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screenshot_20180216-012748.thumb.jpg.4e1a64432f679102762c9c21e78e39b4.jpg@raz-0, you make some good points. Yes, there people who take SSRIs who need frequent adjustments, who don't follow instructions while taking them, who get them from their primary care physician rather than a psychiatrist, and who don't have sufficient medical follow-up. All excellent points. Is there a legal way to only allow people who have been on a stable dosage for many years and who has close follow-up with his/her psychiatrist, and who this psychiatrist deems to be safe to himself/herself and is not a threat to others to purchase firearms? Those people are a lot different than people just having drugs given out like candy by your friendly internist, who then may not follow-up to see if the patient is taking the medication properly or is having side-effects. Maybe, but if we can't even get the military or the schools to properly follow-up with authorities about serious and obvious red flags, our hands become tied.

At the top of this post is a summary of findings about people taking SSRIs from the CDC.

That last bullet point scares me. Less than 1/3 to 1/2 of people taking an SSRI have seen a mental health professional in the last year. I would agree that those people shouldn't own guns.

This comes back around to my initial point, we can't paint such a broad stroke and say "anyone taking an SSRI." Those who take them maybe sometimes and who don't followup with their doctors, maybe shouldn't be able to get guns legally. Unfortunaly, they can still get them illegally and if they're determined, they will. I see no reason to ban people who are taking SSRIs correctly and who have frequent folkowup with their psychiatrists and whose psychiatrist is willing to state that the individual is not a danger to himself or others. Not everyone has to keep increasing doses to the point of side effects.

Personally, I don't want the NRA going out there and saying absolutely nothing has to be done. Personally, I think it's clear that we need much better inter-institutional communication on all levels. A kid permanently expelled from school due to violence shouldn't be able to buy a gun. But if it's not reported correctly, the kid has a clean record and can buy. 

It's very complex. We don't want people to be afraid to get needed assistance because they are afraid they'll be denied 2A rights down the road. That potentially causes a worse situation.

I honestly think it comes down to better communication all around, both official and unofficial. This killer should never have been able to legally purchase his guns---if only the school officials reported the expulsion due to violence to the police. There are a lot of "if onlys" to this horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider this source to be the best one, frankly... but I've seen this information before in other places, so I suspect the list is pretty accurate. It outlines all the killers who were on various psych drugs.

http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/

It's quite a chilling read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gunsrlegal said:

No, I never implied that I was fine with what happened and I don't appreciate you even implying that. It's the method that is being suggested to deny access to which I object because it's no more logical than denying firearms for every citizen.

If most mass killers are males, are you prepared to give up your 2A rights? That is as logical as having everybody on medication give up their 2A rights, so is that okay with you? If it's not, what do you suggest?

I agree with you that mental health intervention is desperately needed. From what I've read, the shooter had known problems. He reportedly posted about violence and shooting people on public forums. He was expelled from school due to violence. Where was the communication? Why didn't anyone, including the school, report this to the police? A record check would have shown that he was a gun owner. Could his guns have been confiscated due to these red flags? I don't know the answer to that on a legal basis. But this POS showed the signs of needing serious help for at least over a year to many people (school officials and classmates) and nothing was said or done. So to your point, where was the needed intervention? Was he even on medication? I haven't seen any reports about that yet.

I am starting to see a pattern of lack of communication among officials: the military and civilian legal authorities, schools and legal authorities, etc. For God's sake, schools have to report the mere suspicion of child abuse if a student comes to school with bruises, why don't they have to report expulsion due to violence?

Maybe a place to start? All of this "see something, say something" crap is meaningless if even the public officials ignore it.

You’re right, and I apologize for any insinuation. 

I agree that more reporting is useless if the officials don’t act on it.   Though I admit it is a lot easier to see the pattern in hindsight versus in real-time.  It also brushes up against all the surveillance state concerns and fears. Not sure how to balance that. Same with medications. While it may make sense to limit or bar access to firearms by folks on certain medications, how do you balance that against the fears that this won’t be used as an incremental incroachment of our rights by the Left?  

I do think discussing some sort of additional scrutiny, limit, or in worse cases prohibition of folks on certain meds makes sense. I don’t know if that would help or not but it’s worth discussing with adequate safeguards to prevent abuse or overuse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

You’re right, and I apologize for any insinuation. 

I agree that more reporting is useless if the officials don’t act on it.   Though I admit it is a lot easier to see the pattern in hindsight versus in real-time.  It also brushes up against all the surveillance state concerns and fears. Not sure how to balance that. Same with medications. While it may make sense to limit or bar access to firearms by folks on certain medications, how do you balance that against the fears that this won’t be used as an incremental encroachment of our rights by the Left?  

I do think discussing some sort of additional scrutiny, limit, or in worse cases prohibition of folks on certain meds makes sense. I don’t know if that would help or not but it’s worth discussing with adequate safeguards to prevent abuse or overuse. 

And that's the conundrum.  I don't know what safeguards you could put in place to prevent abuses that would still keep the new restrictions desired "effective" in helping to solve the problem.  Saying  "People who are on medications A, B, C should not have access to firearms" is way too simplistic.  Some meds, normally used for psychological issues can also be used for other purposes (sleep aids, etc.). And, even if there were some clear meds that could be listed as "prohibiting/restricting firearms ownership," what's to stop the patient from simply refusing to accept the prescription? Are we also going to mandate that the doctor file reports that they recommended the prescription but the patient refused?  How would HIPAA deal with that?

I still maintain that "adjudication" of mental illness by a court should be the only way a person can be restricted from ownership of firearms for reasons of mental health. This, after the full due process treatment and the ability to offer a defense.  This is how it works for criminal activity.  It should also work that way for mental health issues.

That said, even more fundamentally, we must all re-examine our lives in this "free society" we all live in.  What price are we willing to pay to live in that free society?   There will me more incidents like this in the future, I'm afraid. Are we willing to pay that price for our liberty?  I mean, yes, we should do whatever we can to prevent these incidents, where possible, but not if it compromises our rights and liberties as part of living in this free society.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i;'m gonna sound like a dick. but....when did we get rid of the loony bins? that's about when this started. we suddenly were "too civilized" of a people to lock up those nutballs in a loony bin. so what happens to them? they walk among us. then we go farther. they're not nutballs. they're just misunderstood. those that are nutballs, we can medicate to control their nutty thoughts.(controling any mental condition through meds is actually very scary). then if you pay ANY attention to the commercials for these meds that are designed to control the nutty thoughts......they've got WORSE side effects than if we didn't medicate the nutballs to controll the nutty thoughts. and our docs prescribe thie crap to these nutballs. while it's rare'ish that any of those nutballs goes off the deep end on these meds.....the fact is that it IS proven out that this happens. if they had no access to guns, they'd go in with a knife. or a machete. or a sword. or they'd wait till the kids are outside, and plow into them in a truck or suv.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a psyc med issue, it's a "how many red flags are needed until you do something" issue. He had meds AND active threats to friends, school, police, fbi. So why if this was a domestic complaint, everything would be confiscated and put on a nics hold. Yet for all he did nothing was done.  At that point when everything is taken away, if he really was fine he can go to court and have it reinstated. Multiple flags should trigger something, with a way to prove either way. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SW9racer said:

It's not a psyc med issue, it's a "how many red flags are needed until you do something" issue. He had meds AND active threats to friends, school, police, fbi. So why if this was a domestic complaint, everything would be confiscated and put on a nics hold. Yet for all he did nothing was done.  At that point when everything is taken away, if he really was fine he can go to court and have it reinstated. Multiple flags should trigger something, with a way to prove either way. 

Yes, I couldn't agree more! I do think looking at the perhaps loose prescribing of SSRI's (particularly to young people) is an issue worth exploring, but those drugs also provide tremendous relief to those who suffer with chronic depression. It's a complex issue.

Someone on here (in the 1A thread I believe?) had links to some interesting news articles. It seems the current school administrator, not that long ago, had been concerned about the number of police actions (like arrests) that were happening at the school, so they wanted to make a concerted effort to avoid having kids records permanently stained by an arrest. Efforts to deal with situations internally were being promoted. I'll see if I can find the link and place it here.

Now, this is just conjecture on my part, but I do wonder if that program was in place when this kid had his problems? Was it a newer "soft approach" that kept this young man from being arrested and tried when he supposedly attacked his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend, or made terroristic threats, etc? I find it interesting that a teacher was immediately saying to the press, in so many words, Oh yeah, I knew about this student... the school sent an email out about him saying not to let him bring in a backpack because he had made threats towards students.

Why on earth would this teacher just make up a story like that? It was a spontaneous outburst to a reporter and based on everything I'm seeing, I believe the teacher's story! I believe this school knew full well this kid posed a threat, but instead of involving police, they just expelled him to "make the problem go away" - much like schools over the years have been known to quietly push out pedophile teachers because they didn't want the negative press... so the pedophile would just move along to the next school and prey on more kids there. So, in this situation, there was no official intervention, no charges, no ability to assess his mental state or his possession of guns... and now 17 people are dead. Missed opportunity. And as I stated on the other thread, I think heads are gonna roll and lawsuits are gonna fly!

Update: Yes, @JimB1shared this on the other thread. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/11/05/243250817/fla-school-district-trying-to-curb-school-to-prison-pipeline 

Upon reading it again, I can see that it applied specifically to "non-violent" crimes. And yet, I do wonder though, when the attitude turns to "let's do everything we can to avoid the school-to-prison pipeline" instead of "let's hold people accountable for their actions and get disruptive elements dealt with properly" --- does that shift in attitude turn into a softer approach all-around?  I'll be VERY interested to hear what, exactly, the school knew about this student, what communications they sent out, whether they did or did not notify the police, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 3:34 AM, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't consider this source to be the best one, frankly... but I've seen this information before in other places, so I suspect the list is pretty accurate. It outlines all the killers who were on various psych drugs.

 

yep, many past killers were.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SW9racer said:

It's not a psyc med issue, it's a "how many red flags are needed until you do something" issue. He had meds AND active threats to friends, school, police, fbi. So why if this was a domestic complaint, everything would be confiscated and put on a nics hold. Yet for all he did nothing was done.  At that point when everything is taken away, if he really was fine he can go to court and have it reinstated. Multiple flags should trigger something, with a way to prove either way.

I agree, this is the problem that must be addressed. There were MULTIPLE Red flags that this dude had issues. There was a report today that the LEO's were called to his house over 30 times for different incidences. Add in that, all his social media posts, being expelled from school and the fact that so many people he knew said he was a loose cannon.

MORE gun laws won't fix this. Approximately 1 out of 6 people are on some sort of medication for psyc issues. Putting a question on the 4473 regarding this will keep people who are mentally OK from owning firearms.

My opinion is, since with many of these past shooters there were Red Flags, is to hold people around them an accessories to the crime. We always hear after the fact, "well, we all knew XYZ had issues, so his killing people doesn't surprise us". If people knew that they can also be held accountable for not reporting someone who shows definite issues, this is the only way to get a handle on these shooters.

In a country of 320 million people, you can legislate away "crazy". It has to be "See something, Say something".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another HUGE problem is social media, and all the connections with it. Plus violent video games. There have been firearms available for centuries, why have these "soft target" shootings increased so much the last 10 years. We've had young males in the country for multiple centuries, why are so many young men snapping and killing people more frequently.

There are major social, personal responsibility, broken family issues that need to be looked at.

Banning AR-15 "assault weapons of war" isn't the answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

I agree, this is the problem that must be addressed. There were MULTIPLE Red flags that this dude had issues. There was a report today that the LEO's were called to his house over 30 times for different incidences. Add in that, all his social media posts, being expelled from school and the fact that so many people he knew said he was a loose cannon.

Yikes, where did you see that? Was it a legitimate source? Because I hadn't seen that yet. Hmmm... I'm wondering now about that spokesperson for the local police pleading with the crowd "if you see something, say something" ...did they (the cops) see anything themselves? I mean, 30 calls?? I wonder what the incidences were...? And when they happened? Was this at his mom's house or the people he moved in with after her death (who have claimed everything was "fine")? Wow. Soooo many red flags... so many questions. What an utter tragedy. It breaks my heart to think this might have been prevented if someone - anyone! - had taken a more proactive stance to intercede in this young man's life.

Update: yeah, being reported pretty widely - 39 police visits since 2010 and leading up to his mom's death - host of reasons - DV, abuse, mentally ill person, etc. So, he perhaps wasn't that "hidden" to the police either...? :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sniper22 said:

Another HUGE problem is social media, and all the connections with it. Plus violent video games. There have been firearms available for centuries, why have these "soft target" shootings increased so much the last 10 years. We've had young males in the country for multiple centuries, why are so many young men snapping and killing people more frequently.

There are major social, personal responsibility, broken family issues that need to be looked at.

Banning AR-15 "assault weapons of war" isn't the answer.

 

social media is scary. you see the crap they've been finding? at least 3 others that were thwarted either just before this one, and just after this one.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...