First up I'd like to offer my condolonces to all that have lost a loved one in this tragedy.

So this scumbag is mentally ill it appears, how did he get a gun legally? Or is that of no importance, if you're ok in the brain department or not? Or did he just not raise any red flags when they checked (as in, it wasn't known he was mentally ill, at least not to authorities)?
Note: I assume he got his gun legally, as there wasn't anything in the news to suggest otherwise.

I don't want this to turn into a 5 page long debate on the 2nd Amandment, so please, could someone just tell how guns are dealt with in Arizona? All I heard was, that the laws are pretty liberal (in the original sense of the word) concerning guns.

Thanks, krashkart. I just checked the local newspaper and it stated her condition was "critical" but apparently she is still alive and aware of her surroundings. The doctors had asked her to raise two fingers and she had done that.

Oh, and I hope my invisible sarcasm tags in the first two paragraphs were visible enough.

I'm not even sure that he was declared psychologically impaired (couldn't think of a better phrase -- see next). In my home state if a person is committed to an institution their name goes on the list of folks that cannot own firearms. Sounds like it was only recently that anyone had begun to worry about his stability. He slipped through before anyone could prevent this from happening.




Got my two fingers crossed in hope. :yep:

I saw your sarcasm tags right off. No worries, I added a couple of my own to them. :up:



@VipertheSniper - My home state is not Arizona, so not really sure how they handle gun control. :hmmm:

Well if it wasn't known to authorities that he was out of his mind so to say, it doesn't really matter what gun laws there are in Arizona. Even when there is also the requirement to have all your marbles together to own a gun, he would've got it.

It seems as though Giffords has a chance...

I'm not a man of prayer, but if I were, I'd be begging God to pull her through this.

Well depends on what kind os schizophrenia someone has, for some subkind of schizophrenia there are meds for like Risperdal or Clozapine and Seroquel.
Its a combination between meds and treatment in a medical institution, here in Germay we have that in form of open Mental hospitals or for "locked up" medical Care centers specialized on schizophrenia.
It allways depends on what subkind of schizophrenia you have.

And to generalize the mentally ill and lock them up, in many case would be taking the sledgehammer to crack a nut.
99% of the mentally ill are no danger for the people around them.
Since two years i'm battling a gainst Huntingtons i take a great amount of meds on a daily base including antidepressants, neuroleptics and benzodiazepine.
So in German medical standards i'm mentally ill but i'm not a danger to society.
Nevertheless i had to hand over my firearms to the authorities because of my disease.
So i count your statement:"Helping the mentally ill is very difficult. You can lock them up, or not"
as a search for a simple solution or just beeing not very well informed about mental diseases.
Mental diseases are to complex for simple solutions.

That brings me to my next Point:
Americans and their love for simple solutions.
Simple solutions may work on a local scale, but they are not working in a nationwide or international scale.
The shooting, which is a real tragedy is not just a local problem its a nationwide.
In the last two years the common parlance used by R and D has aggravated in an amount, someone may think its a political arms race.
Media and political Propagandists from R and D have heatend up the political climate in an unjustifiable manner.
There is no political discussion anymore its just pointing fingers to each other and blaming the others seeding hate and prejudice.
Central Political issues have been changed against political stereotypes and insubstantial gossipry.
Carpetbaggers and political dabblers showed up with simple 18th century solutions but the problem is 21st centuries world is to complex and solutions from the past wont work.

In the past the USA where an inspiring example for democraty and a free society now you're just a daunting example of how political hatred and political prejudice can make a whole nation intolerant and filled with hate and resentiment.
Thats the picture the US have shown the rest of the world the last two years.

There is a system to help, but as a citizen he has to avail himself of it. If he doesn't because he has a frank mental illness, then his liberty to decide about his own health needs to be taken away. The US used to do this, but complaints about institutionalizing people lead to that stopping. Removing this basic human right from people (their very freedom) is something Americans are loathe to do (sorry if that is a "simple" solution, but taking away someone's freedom is a last resort, not a first one).

I've seen the cycle personally, as my brother was schizophrenic. Being schizophrenic doesn't make you dangerous, but there is overlap between those that ARE dangerous and those that are not (even if the dangerous are a tiny minority). Requiring treatment means taking away their personal freedom. Requiring people to take meds pretty much requires incarceration (since unless you watch them swallow the meds, you have no way of knowing if they take them).

There is no sense to generalise all mentally ill people.

There needs to be made a weighing of the individual'S freedom, and the right of the community to be protected. None of the two may automatically dominate over the other, no matter what.

Schizophrenia is not like schizophrenia. While not all schizophrenic people are dangerous, schizophrenia of certain types and grades can make you a dangerous person - to yourself, and to others as well.

Other psychiatric syndroms, manic people for example or anancastic ones, need assistance, sometimes even protection from themselves, in order to not let them ruining themselves, financially for example. This would not only effect themselves, maybe, but also their families, and children, if there are any. It also effects the community because it would need to pay for the damage or later needed social wellfare, possibly.

So, again: the rights and freedom of the - sane or insane - individual do not automatically rule over the interest of the community, nor shall the interests of the community automatically rule over the interests of the individual. A reasonable balance needs to be found. Total freedom there is for none of both, and nercessarily never can be (as long as you have no anarchy, than your relative level of freedom gets decided by your relative strength compared to that of others). Chance for abuse is there - regarding both possible parties. A legal framework is needed to mark the basic structure of the balancing act - a closer assessement of the individual case and its typical characteristics is inevitable as well.

Generalisations on psychiatric drugs, also makes little sense. They have gone a long way since the 50s, some are not good, others are extremely good, and it always depends on in what context they are being used. It is amazing that by swallowing a well-chosen medicine, you possibly still can get a very differentiated, psychologic/neurologic reaction that the patient under best circumstances does not even obviously notices, assuming he suffers by something that can be treated. There are good drugs. There are bad drugs. And often, the good ones cost more money as long as their patents are still valid.

King Otto,
sorry to hear that. Don't lose your courage. I wish you a good delay! Be careful with those Benzos.

First i want to say that my post wasnt ment as a offense.

Well and if you didnt want to take away the freedom of an mentally ill person, there still would be the possibility for day care centers like we have it in Germany, they work with very good results.
Here in germany you can be put in medical facilities against your will, but this has to be ordered by a judge. Its not so easy either.
But if a mentally ill one is a danger for public safety, it was and will be done.

This is my personal point of view also its not ment as an offense:
The public safety in my eyes is also a basic freedom and has always to be put in a higher level than the freedom of a human beeing which maybe isn't anymore capable to decide for himself.
And if a ill person becomes a danger to public safety, yes his personal freedom should be taken, maybe for a limited amount of time or for ever.
But for such a decission there should be a very high juridically and medical standard.


As you said "my brother was" i hope he is well.

And yet you never do. Talk is cheap.

And yet here you are doing exactly that. Political exploitation for the right is all you ever do.

Here's a story in the LA Times that sheds some light on these issues - apparently it's very hard judging who is going to "snap" and do something like this. Apparently budget issues have strained the system as well - funding cuts. :nope:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...,2679941.story

There are day centers, and assisted living as well here in the US. My brother was in a "group home" with other patients, and a care giver living as housemates. Still, they can easily forget or decide not to take their meds. This is a common occurrence.

My point is that even with a patient like this guy (clearly the very rare dangerous variety) getting mental health care, he is still an adult, citizen (unless institutionalized against his will), and would be at risk.

BTW, where is the guy's family? My brother got the care he got because my family was proactive and took a role in his care. His family must have known there was something seriously wrong with him. They have a responsibility, too. Again, the usual suspects will complain about budget cuts, etc, but the reality is that for care to work when it is not mandatory (which would require a court-order in the US), the patient has to decide to seek care. The trouble with mental illness is that the worst off patients are the least likely to seek care. Those with more minor disease are going to be the ones well enough to recognize that they actually need care. It's a catch-22 (literally).

yeah...where was his family?

I can understand why his friends bailed on him...but they should have mentioned his behavior to somebody.

A dreadful act.

BTW, regarding the terrible politicization of this attack, the sheriff and the press are absolutely complicit in this, as are some politicians. Immediately calling for "toning down rhetoric" implies that rhetoric had anything to do with this in the first place—and there is zero data that this is true. It goes to statements by others here that the US somehow is in a particularly polarized state, which any even casual student of American political history would know is utter rubbish.

A very good point Tater.

Hmm ok then please explain some of this pictures.

http://www.abload.de/img/912_teaparty_dc_we_ca4mwz.jpeg

http://www.abload.de/img/killliberalskmo6.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/saveasealclubaliberaltmv4.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/2009-06-12-liberalhunt8ma2.jpg

http://www.abload.de/img/liberalvmag.jpg

So what? If you have a point with those pictures, compare them to polarization during every other US Administration. Have you read editorials written during the Adams Administration? What do you know about open rebellions like the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration? What about the years leading to the US Civil War?

US politics is no more polarized than ever.

What i try to say is that polarization should not be an component of any kind of discussion including political themes. Polarization just make people blind for rational argumentation.
On both sides!!

American politics is like a sport for some people. They cheer on their team and boo the other guys. It's just that way.