Jump to content
SJG

Fl School Shooting & Mental Health

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

400mm guns in America, 330mm people and you have a far greater chance of drowning than being killed by a gun much less an AR

Yeah, that’s just stupid. How would someone only 13” tall even use a handgun, let alone an AR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More information rolling out... he was actually assessed by local mental health professionals after cutting himself online. They determined he did not need to be committed due to the fact that his mother was providing oversight and he was under the care of a mental health clinic for his various emotional problems.

However, after the assessment, he stopped receiving treatment and then his mother died ...so, those 2 stabilizing factors were both removed... with disastrous results.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-school-shooting-nikolas-cruz-cutting-snapchat-20180216-story.html

My thoughts: Aside from making schools harder targets (which I think should happen)... I also have long believed we need systemic changes in our mental health system - all of which would require money and legislative (HIPPA) changes. Of course, I don't want to see some giant "big brother" nanny state either. But still, as a society, I feel we should be able to care for our weakest members much better than we do, for their own good AND the community's.

Some thoughts... schools are "mandated reporters" if they think a child is being abused. Sooo....

  • Are schools "mandated reporters" if they feel strongly a kid poses a threat? 
  • Are schools required to report to police and local mental health services when a student is expelled? 
  • Should mental health clinics be required to flag cases where "at-risk" patients stop receiving treatment "against medical advice"...?
  • Should all of the above situations trigger some periodic "wellness checks" - (maybe 3, 6 and 12 months) by a team comprised of a local LEO and a mental health worker?... to make sure that the situation hasn't degraded and become dangerous? 

We see this happening with child abuse cases all too often. The case worker signs off because things look "OK" during the visit,  but a year later (once the kids have been murdered and stuffed in a box in the basement) they find out that the situation changed after the last visit... a parent dies, the other went off their meds, an abusive boyfriend moves in, the kid "aged out" of the system, etc.  

The number of "red flags" in this case is really appalling. And yet, THIS IS HOW WE TREAT OUR MENTALLY ILL in this country. They fall through the cracks... they end up homeless, in the ER, in jail.. and yeah, on rare occasions, they shoot up a school. We have a very broken mental health system.

In response to reports of horrific abuses a few decades back, we closed many state psychiatric hospitals (rather than fixing them), with the promise that these issues could be better handled by local community-level mental health workers. But, in reality, those systems today are underfunded, overburdened, and they can't keep up with demand.

Yeah, Moms Demand Action and all the other anti-2A types are riding this particular shooting for all it's worth and "blaming the gun", but the fact is... this young man had serious emotional issues, known by many agencies... and the current system failed him and that community miserably.

The people crying out for gun control need to reckon with this fact: if that young man didn't buy a gun, he could have easily rented a box truck at Home Depot, waiting for the final school bell of the day, and mowed down the crowd... with an equal or greater body count. There's a lot of angles to this case... blaming the gun is a simplistic "feel good" measure that doesn't address the root cause.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that what you mention above should be discussed to me it comes down to the balance between oversight/prohibition vs due process and bureaucracy.   Imagine if DYFS could report information to NICS.  Any process set up to resolve these mental health gaps must also include due process, oversight, and accountability before action is taken and also account for when those situations are treated or just plain wrong. Without undo burden in time, cost, safety on the patient. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

While I agree that what you mention above should be discussed to me it comes down to the balance between oversight/prohibition vs due process and bureaucracy.   Imagine if DYFS could report information to NICS.  Any process set up to resolve these mental health gaps must also include due process, oversight, and accountability before action is taken and also account for when those situations are treated or just plain wrong. Without undo burden in time, cost, safety on the patient. 

I don't disagree at all! All of this should be subject to due process... I would never argue otherwise. 

However, don't about things spinning in a direction virtually guaranteed NOT to work, look at this (which I just posted on the "other" thread in 1A Lounge on this topic also):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prominent-republican-donor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons/ar-BBJg5E7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't disagree at all! All of this should be subject to due process... I would never argue otherwise. 

However, don't about things spinning in a direction virtually guaranteed NOT to work, look at this (which I just posted on the "other" thread in 1A Lounge on this topic also):

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/prominent-republican-donor-issues-ultimatum-on-assault-weapons/ar-BBJg5E7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

I’m sure Mr Hoffman finds it easy to preach from on high, surrounded by security armed with the exact rifle he’s looking to ban.  

 

Unrelated question, how does the Fox NICS bill differ from what we have been discussing here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of mental health and access to guns is an ongoing topic of much discussion, with no clear or simple answers.  Many of us simply say that we need to identify those who have serious mental issues and somehow "tag" them so that they cannot have access to legally purchasing firearms. I have been one of those advocates. 

What I am beginning to realize is that our country's mental health professionals and system do not identify most of these people because for the most part, they do not come into contact with those with mental illness since most of those folks do not voluntarily seek care.  Also, even if they did, our current laws are designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness and place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person's will.

In today's New York Times is a very eye-opening article written by Amy Barnhorst, an Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and the Vice Chairwoman of Community Psychiatry at the Univ. of California, Davis.  The article's title is:
"I Can't Stop Mass Shooters"

FYI, here is the link to that article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/opinion/mental-health-stopping-mass-shooters.html

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 1:57 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

Well, I just wanted to share 2 more articles before I run out on an errand... here's a fascinating take on how another country handles it, Israel. I found the contents logical and hard to disagree with! I particularly like that it includes student training as a component - engaging them in protecting themselves rather than leaving them to cower or running in a panic like sheep to the wolves.

Why NOT give kids the knowledge and techniques to protect themselves? What could be a harder target than a school with an adequate number of well-trained, ARMED guards and a student body that's been taught self-reliance, teamwork and has been conditioned to fight tooth and nail? I'm sorry, but "hardening the target" is one thing that the U.S. must consider!

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2018/02/15/follow-israels-already-proven-lead-dealing-school-shootings/

Here's the other article. Kind of a nice piece - in the face of all this horror - about the smart reactions of 2 JROTC folks on the campus:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/02/16/junior-rotc-students-heard-stoneman-high-school-shooters-first-shots-followed-amazing/

 

Because educators for the most part refuse to see that there is a problem and fret at anything other than an 'open and inviting' environment. 

 

Liberals to the core...some of email anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I didn't read the article yet. Forgive me, @AVB-AMG. I definitely will! I have to download Chrome, LOL, and read it through that anonymous method someone suggested - I'm currently blocked from seeing the article.

But, my family were all mental health workers - and we discussed these issues at the dinner table my whole life and I continue to track mental health developments closely. So, I'm going to pontificate anyway... (forgive me, it's book-length)...

First of all, nothing will ever stop ALL mass killers. It's a part of human nature that rears up now and again - it has since the beginning of time and it will always be that way. That is a stark reality. Anyone who denies it is in la-la land. But, some of the changes that might prevent a mass killing could also prevent a common ex-felon from getting a gun.. any we should consider them anyway.  These are the options I see getting tossed around and the plusses/minuses of each (in my view):

Confiscate/Remove Guns Entirely?

  • (-) Removes fundamental/constitutional rights. Ignores that statistics reveal  guns are used to protect at least 2x more than they're used for crime. So if you remove guns from legal owners, you put them at risk by removing their ability to defend themselves..
  • (-) it doesn't prevent a determined killer from: a) getting a black market gun, b) using something else - box truck, explosives, arson, etc. (Interesting historic point, the worst mass killing in a school in U.S. history is still the one that happened in Bath, MI in the 1920's - someone detonated a bomb - NO GUNS USED). 

More Gun Control?:

      A) Outlaw the AR-15 and/or large capacity magazines?

  • (-) All rifles combined account for a tiny fraction of total murders with a gun. Why on earth go after the LEAST common root cause? The fact that an AR-15 was used in a half-dozen mass murders - it's horrifying, yes, but is it "statistically" significant? No! Handguns, due to concealability, still account for the greatest amount of murders by far.
  • (-) It is "functionally" no different than other common magazine-fed rifles. It has no special magic powers that I'm aware of. So, what does removing it from citizens do? Pragmatically speaking? Nothing!
  • (-) Reduce magazine size? 10's of millions own standard size magazines with no issues - let's not turn them into instant felons because of an occasional madman. 
  • (-) And, how fast can someone change a magazine?  Pretty damn quick. Stop focusing on the hardware

      B) Raise the age to own guns to 21?

  • (+) We know far more about brain development then we did years ago.. we know teens are impulsive, have worse judgment, and are more likely to suffer from mood swings. I personally think it's worth discussing.
  • (-) Then again, we used to have young teenage kids bring their rifles to school. It was a common practice. Has the nation's youth changed so much that they can't be trusted? And if they're so childlike and mentally unformed, how do we justify allowing 18 year olds to join the military? To get married? To rent a moving truck? To buy a pressure cooker and fireworks? To defend their own life/others? etc., etc. - it's complicated!

      C) Other gun control options?

  • (-) Most of the options I've seen conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of crimes are by ex-felons - often young black men slaughtering other young black men. It's "racist" (I'm dead serious) to wail ONLY when mostly white kids get slaughtered in a mass event, while ignoring the much higher body count in poor inner city neighborhoods. You would think politically correct progressives would have figured that out by now.
  • (-) It's not just racist, it's illogical to focus on the least common.
  • (-) Most gun control options punish the law-abiding for the crimes of the criminals - a perverse approach.
  • (-) It's foolish to focus on the "tool" not the "operator". While we're so busy focused on guns, what's to keep a sick kid from placing a few pipe bombs?

Better Enforcement of Existing Laws?:

(+) This is a no-brainer... and I see no downsides. We've seen mass killings that were completely avoidable because someone didn't follow protocol... didn't upload records, etc. 

(+) We SHOULD be able to get both sides to agree to this - it's the least controversial and perhaps the most impactful. We should push to come-together on this - both Dems, Independents and Repubs - pro2A and anti2A. If the gun control types actually "just want to save one life" - call them on it. This is a way to do it.

Harden the Targets?:

(+) The governments pays to protect courthouses, companies pay to protect their corporate campuses, banks pay to protect their cash and employees... why WOULDN'T we do this? Seriously, this is another no brainer. Even I (who bitches about my school's share of property taxes) would have no problem paying a bit more for police, security guards or regular training for teachers willing to step up to that role. 

(+) It protects not only against the occasional ordinary kook, but it also protects against a terrorist attack against a school- a tactic we have already seen  used overseas.

Better Mental Health Treatment & Agency Coordination?:

(+) We are judged by how we treat the weakest in our society. We fail our mentally ill MISERABLY. They populate our jails, our ERs, our underpasses, our subway tunnels... they are beaten, robbed, raped and murdered at higher percentages than the rest of us...or they die of exposure, etc., etc. We should invest more into this... simply because it's moral and the right thing to do. We need no other reason.

(+) Too many of these killers were, in fact, well-known to be mentally "off" - this latest young man was known to: neighbors, DYFS, the school administration, other students, local police, the FBI - hell, do these groups ever talk to each other? Compare notes? Flag cases that might need follow-up? Sure, it won't work in every case, but what if we prevented even 10%? I think it's quite possible. Besides, it's humane for society to help redirect someone's downward spiral.

(+) People might argue that some of this goes against HIPAA and the rights of the mentally ill that were hard-won in recent years. To a small degree - I'm fine with that, simply because I think we swung the pendulum much too far towards allowing seriously mentally ill people to determine their own fate, then they go off their meds, and quickly become very sick again. Look up a program called AOT - Assisted Outpatient Treatment - it should be implemented nationwide. In New York, it's called Kendra's Law. Basically, someone with a known history of mental illness (and this is overseen by a judge so there's due process) who needs treatment (psychotropic drugs, etc.) is required to check in for regular blood tests and the like to make sure he/she STAYS on the meds. If the person doesn't, they are committed involuntarily. This needs to happen along with funding for more psychiatric beds in communities. I don't trust any mental health professional who says "there's nothing we can do." That's a cop-out

(+) I think we need to give serious pushback on the pharma industry despite their powerful lobby. We need to determine if the use of SSRI's specifically in teenagers is truly advisable, and if so, whether it should be so widespread.. and whether it should only be prescribed by a psychiatrist (not a regular family doctor). We KNOW these drugs cause rage and suicidal ideation in a small percentage of people - and an awful lot of these teens who perpetrated mass killings were on them.

(+) While we're at it, why NOT invest some dollars into studying some of the other changes in society - social media, violent games and movies - to see if there's any causation on real-world violence? 

Changing the News Coverage?:

(+) This is another no-brainer IMO. Every serious, credible psychologist who has studied these killers all came to the same conclusion - the breathless, sirens blaring, 24x7 media coverage inspires copycats. So, why do we let the media continue on that path? Why can't we pressure the media industry to develop and adhere to certain agreed-to "standards" on how to handle the media coverage of these cases? They should be shamed into it if need be. I see NO downside to this either. Trump should push this - a collaboration of experts and media types coming up with voluntary standards. Ha! Let's watch the media squirm as they try to deny their own culpability and therefore reveal their hypocrisy. 

>>>>I personally think a multi-pronged approach is best. Those last 4 things I mentioned cry out for action: improved enforcement, hardening schools, better mental health treatment/coordination and sensible media coverage - because, arguably, they are the MOST likely to have real impact on school shooters (and, in some cases, on the much more prevalent career felons). At the same time, they SHOULD be the least controversial as they create NO infringement on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Seriously, are we so screwed up... so polarized... so divided as a country... that we can't get traction on one or more of these? It's pathetic.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the mag restriction side: I saw an early article that stated he fired “over 150 rounds”. Must been a drum, right?

Whats the difference between reloading 6 times (30rd mags), 10 times (15rd) or 15 times (10rd)?  Why weren’t they able to rush him during mag changes?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

On the mag restriction side: I saw an early article that stated he fired “over 150 rounds”. Must been a drum, right?

Whats the difference between reloading 6 times (30rd mags), 10 times (15rd) or 15 times (10rd)?  Why weren’t they able to rush him during mag changes?

Where the no carry shelter in place argument contradicts the the less round in mags so people can take him down argument...

Brought to you by the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Honestly, I didn't read the article yet. Forgive me, @AVB-AMG. I definitely will! I have to download Chrome, LOL, and read it through that anonymous method someone suggested - I'm currently blocked from seeing the article.

Mrs. Peel:

I read, appreciate and agree with most of your points and suggestions in your very lengthy treaty on this issue.  You have also garnered additional points with me for out-pontificating even me in its length....!   In case you have not figured out a work-around to not being able to see the NY Times article(s) that I provided a link to, here is that piece that I have "cut & pasted" below for you and others to read.  Let me/us know your thoughts.....

AVB-AMG

The Mental Health System Can’t Stop Mass Shooters

By AMY BARNHORST
FEB. 20, 2018

SACRAMENTO — A few years ago, the police brought a 21-year-old man into the crisis unit where I work as an emergency psychiatrist. His parents had called the police after seeing postings on his Facebook page that praised the Columbine shooters, referred to imminent death and destruction at his community college and promised his own “Day of Retribution.” His brother reported to the police that he had recently purchased a gun.

When I interviewed the patient, he denied all of this. He had no history of mental illness and said he didn’t want or need any treatment. My job was to evaluate whether he met the criteria to be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

Each mass shooting reignites a debate about what causes this type of violence and how it can be prevented. Those who oppose further restrictions on gun ownership often set their sights on the mental health care system. Shouldn’t psychiatrists be able to identify as dangerous someone like Nikolas Cruz, the young man charged in the school shooting last week in Florida, who scared his classmates, hurt animals and left menacing online posts?

Mr. Cruz had suffered from depression and was getting counseling at one point. He was also evaluated by emergency mental health workers in 2016, but they decided not to hospitalize him. Why, some critics are demanding, didn’t he receive proper treatment? And can’t we just stop angry, unstable young men like him from buying firearms?

It’s much harder than it sounds.  The mental health system doesn’t identify most of these people because they don’t come in to get care. And even if they do, laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will.

Here in California, as in most states, patients must be a danger to themselves or others because of mental illness before they can be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital. This is a mechanism for getting people into treatment when they are too deep in the throes of their illness to understand that they need it. It allowed me to hospitalize a woman who tried to choke her mother because she was convinced her family had been replaced with impostors, and a man who had sent threatening letters to his boss because he believed she had implanted a microchip in his brain.

But the young man who had written about shooting his classmates was calm, cooperative and polite. The posts, he insisted, were nothing more than online braggadocio. He denied being suicidal or homicidal; he had never heard voices or gotten strange messages from the television. He admitted to having been bullied and was resentful of classmates who seemed to have more thriving social and romantic lives. But he adamantly denied he would be violent toward them.

What options did I have? It was clear to me that he did not have a psychiatric illness that would justify an involuntary hospitalization, but I was reluctant to release this man whose story echoed that of so many mass shooters.

I could fudge it a little, claiming to need more time for observation, and admit him to the hospital anyway. But within the week he would go before a hearing officer to contest being held against his will. The hearing officer would probably come to the same conclusion I had, that he was not dangerous because of a mental illness, and he would be free to go. The only advantage of this version of events would be that the order to release the man who might be the next mass shooter would not be signed with my pen.

Maybe the hearing officer would share my trepidation and commit him out of fear of the alternative. Then the hospital would have 14 more days to treat him.

The psychiatrist responsible for his care would know how to treat delusions, paranoia, mania, suicidal impulses, self-injurious behaviors, auditory hallucinations and catatonia. But there are no reliable cures for insecurity, resentment, entitlement and hatred.

The one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer. Of course, this would do nothing about any guns and ammunition he may already have amassed. Nor would it deter him from getting guns from private-party sales, which are exempt from background checks in many states.

I ended up admitting this patient, and he was released by the hearing officer two days later. He never took any medication, never reached the threshold for a federal firearm prohibition and left the hospital in the same state he arrived in. Like so many of his peers, he will not seek out therapy for the longstanding personality traits that seem to predispose him to violence and rage, and there is no way to impose treatment upon him.

The reason the mental health system fails to prevent mass shootings is that mental illness is rarely the cause of such violence. Even if all potential mass shooters did get psychiatric care, there is no reliable cure for angry young men who harbor violent fantasies. And the laws intended to stop the mentally ill from buying guns are too narrow and easily sidestepped; people like Nikolas Cruz and my patient are unlikely to qualify.

Instead of hoping that imposing mental health treatment on everyone who shows “red flags” will put an end to mass shootings, we should focus on ways to put some distance between these young men and their guns.

Amy Barnhorst is the vice chairwoman of community psychiatry at the University of California, Davis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

Mrs. Peel:

I read, appreciate and agree with most of your points and suggestions in your very lengthy treaty on this issue.  You have also garnered additional points with me for out-pontificating even me in its length....!  

Somehow I knew that YOU, of all people, would appreciate the Herculean length of that last post! :D I read the article with interest, thank you for posting the full text. It doesn't change my opinion on the topic for a few reasons.

1) We've already seen that despite the rarity of true mass shootings, a number of the killers were, in fact, putting out blatant "red flags"... we've seen mass shooters who were "on the radar" and who were even previously expelled from schools where they were identified as threats, etc. So, it's disingenuous to imply that these folks never come to the attention of authorities. In many cases, they do!

2) The author argues, "laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will." Whereas, I'm arguing... that's a poor excuse, because those laws have arguably swing much TOO far in placing those limitations. Mind you, I have concerns about trashing anyone's civil liberties without good reason... but protecting the privacy of a seriously mentally ill person if it withholds needed treatment is the same as watching some pour gasoline over themselves and then pull out a lighter ... and DOING NOTHING to intervene. A seriously mentally ill person is unique in that they're NOT thinking rationally.

3) The author also argues, "The one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer. Of course, this would do nothing about any guns and ammunition he may already have amassed..." Is this true? I thought that an adjudicated committment resulted in confiscation of firearms? Am I wrong? 

4) The author makes a good point about the "angry" patient who's not necessarily mentally ill by way of a clinical definition. That said, better coordination between agencies, I would argue, is even MORE needed! Why do they have to be "officially labelled" to get coordinated attention?

I like to come up with analogies... so here's one: schools spend HUGE money and effort on kids with autism and other serious developmental disabilities (disproportionate to funds spent on other students). Each gets an individual action plan, support from specialist teachers and sometimes a ream of other specialists - all in an effort to help those kids mainstream into society at the highest level possible (sometimes with more success than others). This has become an accepted practice. So, we can do all of that to help those kids... but then there's NO organized effort for a kid like this FL teen? Let's remember, he was so troubled and in such a dysfunctional household that:

  • the police were called to the house on average 6-7x a year, year after year 
  • he was cutting himself online 
  • DYFS was involved
  • he was making threats and getting into fights with other kids.

I mean, are we allocating our resources in the wisest way to service the public good? We can spend 10's of thousands on a developmentally disabled kid.. but another kid who's self-harming and violent... the school just expels him out into society and washes their hands of him? Why no Individual Action Plan and intervention for him?... Argubly, there might be 17 fewer dead bodies today if that kid had steady follow-up, closer evaluation, uninterrupted medical treatment, and coordination with local police and other authorities. I'm sorry... but this was quite possibly preventable.  

What we have now is everyone pointing fingers at each other... the local police, the mental health community, the schools... they're all saying "not OUR fault... there's nothing we could have done... its those horrible GUNS!!" I don't buy it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Somehow I knew that YOU, of all people, would appreciate the Herculean length of that last post! :D I read the article with interest, thank you for posting the full text. It doesn't change my opinion on the topic for a few reasons.

1) We've already seen that despite the rarity of true mass shootings, a number of the killers were, in fact, putting out blatant "red flags"... we've seen mass shooters who were "on the radar" and who were even previously expelled from schools where they were identified as threats, etc. So, it's disingenuous to imply that these folks never come to the attention of authorities. In many cases, they do!

2) The author argues, "laws designed to preserve the civil liberties of people with mental illness place limits on what treatments can be imposed against a person’s will." Whereas, I'm arguing... that's a poor excuse, because those laws have arguably swing much TOO far in placing those limitations. Mind you, I have concerns about trashing anyone's civil liberties without good reason... but protecting the privacy of a seriously mentally ill person if it withholds needed treatment is the same as watching some pour gasoline over themselves and then pull out a lighter ... and DOING NOTHING to intervene. A seriously mentally ill person is unique in that they're NOT thinking rationally.

3) The author also argues, "The one concrete benefit of officially committing him would be that he could be prohibited from buying a gun from any federally licensed retailer. Of course, this would do nothing about any guns and ammunition he may already have amassed..." Is this true? I thought that an adjudicated committment resulted in confiscation of firearms? Am I wrong? 

4) The author makes a good point about the "angry" patient who's not necessarily mentally ill by way of a clinical definition. That said, better coordination between agencies, I would argue, is even MORE needed! Why do they have to be "officially labelled" to get coordinated attention?

I like to come up with analogies... so here's one: schools spend HUGE money and effort on kids with autism and other serious developmental disabilities (disproportionate to funds spent on other students). Each gets an individual action plan, support from specialist teachers and sometimes a ream of other specialists - all in an effort to help those kids mainstream into society at the highest level possible (sometimes with more success than others). This has become an accepted practice. So, we can do all of that to help those kids... but then there's NO organized effort for a kid like this FL teen? Let's remember, he was so troubled and in such a dysfunctional household that:

  • the police were called to the house on average 6-7x a year, year after year 
  • he was cutting himself online 
  • DYFS was involved
  • he was making threats and getting into fights with other kids.

I mean, are we allocating our resources in the wisest way to service the public good? We can spend 10's of thousands on a developmentally disabled kid.. but another kid who's self-harming and violent... the school just expels him out into society and washes their hands of him? Why no Individual Action Plan and intervention for him?... Argubly, there might be 17 fewer dead bodies today if that kid had steady follow-up, closer evaluation, uninterrupted medical treatment, and coordination with local police and other authorities. I'm sorry... but this was quite possibly preventable.  

What we have now is everyone pointing fingers at each other... the local police, the mental health community, the schools... they're all saying "not OUR fault... there's nothing we could have done... its those horrible GUNS!!" I don't buy it.

 

Cruz was in a special school where he got that type of attention.  He was moved between "traditional" and "transitional/specialized" schools SIX times in three years.  He was in a specialized school where he could get additional counseling and help.  But administrators but him back to traditional school (the HS he shot up) a few months later.  This kid was getting attention and "help," but was moved out of that environment.  The administrators of the school system will not release records due to privacy laws.  I posted a link to the story in the 1A forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

Cruz was in a special school where he got that type of attention.  He was moved between "traditional" and "transitional/specialized" schools SIX times in three years.  He was in a specialized school where he could get additional counseling and help.  But administrators but him back to traditional school (the HS he shot up) a few months later.  This kid was getting attention and "help," but was moved out of that environment.  The administrators of the school system will not release records due to privacy laws.  I posted a link to the story in the 1A forum.

Thanks, @GunsnFreedomI just read that article you referenced... wow, now I'm even MORE gob-smacked that he had firearms. Clearly, they were shuffling him around because they couldn't figure out what to do with him. He was THAT troubled and no one thought to get a commitment order? Even if he was only committed for 3-4 months, he could have gotten some intensive treatment, a deeper evaluation by experts (and as an added benefit, they could have removed the firearms and the adjudicated commitment would have prevented future firearm ownership). Missed opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

700+ kids between age of 15-19 die per year from OD. 300+ of those are just from prescription medication. Upwards of 50,000+ people die a year from OD. 

Even with the "revised" definition of school shootings, about 9 incidents between 1764 and 1976.  20 since background check laws and 1990 Gun Free Zone law. 

More school shootings appear to happen in Public Schools and Public Universities, where Active Shooter drills are routinely conducted,  than private schools or private universities. 

Some people who pass most extensive background checks, polygraph etc go home and engage in domestic violence against spouses, engage in suicide, shooting someone in the back etc.  Some people who pass DHS Top Secret security clearance go beat their spouses, shoot & kill fellow brothers.  Compare that percentage to percentage of people who "slip through" existing background check system and shoot schools up.

All of these facts lead us to couple of things

a) We are barking up the wrong tree

b) The blood of children is on the hands of those who continue to pass these laws with no regard to Life, Liberty or Pursuit Of Happiness - of children who are dead because of these laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANTI's WANT THEM ALL; DISARMAMENT CLOAKED!
SOME VIC's BLOOD IS MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS!
(C) "KILROY WAS HERE!" Special to Black Wire Media.
A new bi-weekly CNJFO column of interest to NJ Patriots.
Tuesday Pre-Gun Control Hearing Edition February 27, 2018 www.cnjfo.com/join-us

“Butchered Alive”

Dateline 2/24/18 Boston MA – “A man armed with a hunting knife stabbed an elderly woman to death Saturday inside a public library in Massachusetts, authorities said. “

This is a perfect example, of sadly many, that prove that the anti-gun folks are disingenuous in their statements of why they want gun control. The anti-gun agenda would tell you that there is no place for firearms and “weapons of war” on our streets. They would tell you that even if one life can be saved it is worth the sacrifice of freedom. They would tell you that there are common sense solutions and should be sensible compromises. Then why aren’t we talking about banning knives then as well? It could have saved this woman’s life, remember if only one additional life can be saved, it would be worth it, right? Not so much to the gun control crowd because unless the evil black rifle is part of the story. But then again, it is not truly about safety & security.

A week or so ago we saw the lives of some young people taken away by the acts of a deranged human being. We saw a system of check and balances fail because the human element once again did not do its job. The perfectly preventable tragedy that unfolded in Florida, is and was, the result of the failure of many at all differing levels of government, to protect that which we should hold most precious, and continually offer as cannon fodder to lunatics.

The school district failed, the guardians of the murderer failed, the sheriff’s office epically failed, the FBI failed, as well as those adults that came in contact with the murderer and did not raise the larger alarm. The warning signs that were brought to the attention of those in authority, by those of his generation, that knew and saw what was in his heart. They were abjectly ignored and sadly not taken seriously, for whatever reason, by those that had the power to prevent it and failed to do so.
Essentially, the anti-gun crowd, is not concerned about safety & security - it is NOT about saving lives. If it were, the antis at a minimum would rally for the complete and total incorporation of mental health records to the NICS. It is not about safety & security – for them it is about control and disarmament, and has always been, let’ not kid ourselves – they want the guns, all of them.

As we look back at the murder in the Boston Library – anyone capable of wielding a hunting knife and carving up a human being in a fit of rage, is capable of so much more horror. When do we realize that there are, mental health issue in our population, and whether it is one person, a few, several or a dozen or more that are killed – it is still murder - each one is no better or worse than the other. All lives matter – not just those that happen to be killed all together at the same time.

Someone might say now – “Hey the guy used a knife not a gun, so why focus on the correlation to the anti-gun crowd?”. Why I am, is exactly my point, it is not the tool that should be focused on. But mental health - as someone said elsewhere and I agree with it - " We have a software issue, not a hardware one by all accounts". Our disposable, ME-ME narcissistic, overly medicated society is capable of so much horror, we need to focus on corrective measures for mental health, not what type of tools that are used day in and day out harmlessly by those that are not bent on murder.

I would love to ask the anti's why is the woman whom was stabbed to death in the library, is her life any less important than others that were killed at all the same time – or especially the Florida School. Did she not have a family? Did she not have some dreams left in her twilight years? Was she deserving of being butchered alive? Of course not, but in the gun control crowd’s eyes, if it is not the evil black rifle - we do not care - ban the evil black guns. Disarm – Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate as per our dear leader Weinberg.

So, in my estimation, you can be sure that the real reason for gun control is not safety & security, but the wholesale disarmament of a citizenry and denial of their right codified in the founding documents, that cannot be granted or taken away by men.

We must always be very vigilant as we are truly the last stand for defense of freedom, the last barrier to promote and keep a society free from tyranny and those that would tear our country apart from within.

Our nation may have beaten the Soviets in an arms race and won the cold war via bankrupting them.

We the free and law abiding citizens may lose our nation from another arms race, by the suppression of the right of the free people to keep and bear arms.

Author---"Kilroy was HERE!"

Editor's Note: "Kilroy Was HERE" is one of our newer guest columnists for Black Wire Media. We sincerely hope you enjoy his technical expertise & expert analysis of current events and how they're shaped by History! ---The Editors

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...