We have ways of committing the mentally ill, by having some sort of public system would not have changed in this situation. Nobody wanted him committed, he was scaring many by his actions but he was never close to being committed. To suggest things would be different based on the health care system??? So we would no longer have crazy people walking the streets? How would they be spotted and put away? How would it be different than today? Level of care, who pays for it, those can be fine complaints and criticisms but noway would this change the situation. Once again, no linkage to the situation but idle ramblings that simply do not apply. I guess Canada never has murders or gunmen who lose their marbles because they would have been spotted well before things went awry? Maybe we would all go through mandatory testing once a year? Yeah, a license to live freely is the answer?

freeman wrote:A contributor from the Daily Kos has a name for angry rhetoric leading to acts of violence: Stochastic Terrorism. Here is an artilcle from Daily Kos on it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10 ... e-shooters

A reliable friend send me a compilation of quotes from Glenn Beck (which I checked as well). Here they are:

So what? How many quotes would you like from him wherein he decries violence and tells his listeners that violence is not an option?

Beyond that, you've seen already many quotes from the Left about violence. Have you seen all the tweets wishing Palin dead?

What's your point? Beck says stupid things? Okay. Big deal.

Tom

We have ways of committing the mentally ill, by having some sort of public system would not have changed in this situation.

Untrue. A publicly funded early psychosis intervention program would specifically have intervened in Mr. Loughrens situation. He's exactly the kind of person these professionals are trained and educated to help. If you read the story I linked you to, you'll now know there are 30 in Ontario versus 10 in the US. (300 million pop versus 12 million)

tom

Nobody wanted him committed, he was scaring many by his actions but he was never close to being committed. To suggest things would be different based on the health care system??? So we would no longer have crazy people walking the streets? How would they be spotted and put away? How would it be different than today? Level of care, who pays for it, those can be fine complaints and criticisms but noway would this change the situation

[/quote]

Would it change your mind if it turns out his parents wanted to help him but couldn't afford private treatment? Or couldn't get publicly funded help? Certainly you can understand that both of those circumstance are entirely plausible in this situation and as such it serves to shed light on a problem that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of other low income Americans face. A relative falling victim to mental health problems and no way to help them.

Mental illness plagues poor people at a far greater rate than middle class or rich, Tom. If their families can't afford private care, and the public system is as non-existent as the picture painted by the ex-Arizona worker who's story I linked you to, then there certainly is little likelihood that there will be an intervention that helps a person like Loughren.
And I'm not suggesting that things would be different in a public health system. I'm providing evidence that it is better. (again see story )
Not perfect. But better.
Better wouldn't guarantee that Loughren wouldn't have become a shooter. Only a lot less likely. The same way that tougher gun laws couldn't have made it impossible for Loughren to kill 6 and wound 19. Only a lot less likely.

Steve, the issue is not whether individual people on the left or right make threats of violence against public figures--I think we can all agree that such threats should not be made by either side. But when political or public figures themselves use violent imagery against their opponents, this has a predictable effect of inspiring those who admire those public or political figures to act violently. I'm not saying you can't ridicule the other side or use strong language to denounce the other side--we're not talking about hurt feelings here. If you're going to be in public life you need to have a thick skin. But talk of violence, blood, and guns with respect to opponents should be decried just as much as racist or sexist language. I think the use of such language by a public figure with a predictable effect on a few mentally unbalanced people who will act due to that language is akin to yelling fire in a theater (when there is no fire).

PC, Seems like you're relying quite a bit on some friend of Loughner to talk about who or isn't a clown. I seem to recall that you have a job in the foreign service/diplomatic sector--surely you would find such "evidence" as somewhat of a thin reed to base your opinion on (much less call someone a clown) And Loughner found the answer that Gifford gave as being unsatisfactory but she was not rude to him. In any case, the contention that we now "know" that Loughner was inspired purely by an animus to Gifford is not well-supported. Maybe now I am understanding what happened with WMD in Iraq...

A lot of if's there Ricky, and absolutely none of them are even likely. Just how would his instability have been caught had his medical care had been different? Seems to me even where you have such programs, they too have a few crackpots snap. No unless you want everyone tested yearly, a license to stay free. His having insurance would have done nothing, his having free government funded insurance, same thing. Yours are speculations while my statement is what actually is. We have absolutely no indication he wanted to seek mental help and apart from that, nothing would have helped. The things he did weirded people out, he was a bit of a screwball but nothing he did suggested he was a menace to himself or society, not so much so to be committed anyways. This is yet another example where you start pushing one of your agendas that has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand. Stick to the facts, we already know your positions on health care, gun control, and so on. If we let this meandering of yours to go on, it will soon be the fault of global warming?

Freeman, the testimony of one friend may indeed be a thin reed...but it is one reed more than than any other theory I've seen thus far. And I'll be happy to eat crow if other data surfaces; I've certainly done it before on this forum.

Gee whiz, I'll eat some now. I would have put down money that the narrative would have changed exclusively to gun control after the shooter proved to be a nut-bar rather than a right-wing stooge. But the shooting in Tuscon as a pro-Obamacare cautionary tale? That's advanced play and well above the low-hanging fruit. I tip my hat.

PCHiway wrote:Gee whiz, I'll eat some now. I would have put down money that the narrative would have changed exclusively to gun control after the shooter proved to be a nut-bar rather than a right-wing stooge. But the shooting in Tuscon as a pro-Obamacare cautionary tale? That's advanced play and well above the low-hanging fruit. I tip my hat.

How cynical are you? Is there no lesson to be learned from this tragedy? Is there nothing that could possibly be noted as having been contributory or even more vitally, something that was by omission contributory?

If a man with mental health problems kills people, I want to know if enough is being done to stop it happening again. Is that a function of my politics? Perhaps. But is a willingness to deflect anything that may call into question the status quo perhaps a function of yours?

GMTom wrote:and I can't tell you that your feeling I am crass is wrong, it's your opinion! I think anyone who guns down innocent people is a jerk, you can think he is a lovely warm person you enjoy to be around ....suit yourself.

Marvellous, Tom. You can tell me it is wrong, I don't want to be accused of trying to curtail your rights. However, I will point out that there are people who are not jerks, but who are also not lovely and warm to be around. Trying to damn me by the use of a false dichotomy is not exactly helping much...

who said they had to be warm and fuzzy? I suggested they might be in your ideal world. In my world it's pretty cut and dry ...he's a jerk. (put mildly)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Is this what the president talked about when describing hurtful rhetoric? Certainly not the same as being vomited upon in a bar, but menacing death upon someone of a different political view doesn't help the discourse.

Nice to see that MSNBC had this on the website. I was surprised that nobody posted on Redscape before now.

No--couldn't be. Only Tea Partiers can spew hurtful rhetoric.

I was sure that I was becoming dyslexic...

Green Arrow wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41094534/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Is this what the president talked about when describing hurtful rhetoric? Certainly not the same as being vomited upon in a bar, but menacing death upon someone of a different political view doesn't help the discourse.

Nice to see that MSNBC had this on the website. I was surprised that nobody posted on Redscape before now.

Hadn't seen it (not being a reader of MSNBC unless linked there - I don't want to be brainwashed by the lefty MSM, do I?)

Yes, what he said was out of order.

He was arrested then committed, so I expect all you 1st Amendment lovers to be shouting out about how awful it is he can't verbally assault someone and imply fatal threat. The committal is interesting, given that apparently that can't possibly have been an option for Loughlen, who some of you have already fully diagnosed...

It is (perhaps?) understandable that someone who was hit by two bullets might be a little upset about the whole thing, though. That the event might possibly have resulted in him losing it for a while? Are we to judge a politician seeking office against the actions of someone who's just been committed?

Machiavelli wrote:No--couldn't be. Only Tea Partiers can spew hurtful rhetoric.

How many times do I have to say it doesn't really matter whether it's the Tea Party, or anyone else?

Or is 'whataboutery' your only actual defence?

From pretty early on...

Machiavelli wrote:One regrets that none of the sane, law-abiding folks in the crowd was armed, else they might have stopped this guy before he shot so many, but that's the cost of the erosion we've already suffered of our 2nd amendment rights.

I've seen an interview a day or so ago with a guy who was nearby, and did have a concealed weapon. He was in the store and came out when he heard the shots. He was confronted with the sight of a man holding a weapon, injured daad and dying people on the floor.

He did not fire, and a good job too. Loughlen had already been disarmed, and the person with the gun was, of course, helping save lives. Had our hero taken his gun out there were various possibilities. He could have killed an innocent man. He could have been spotted and thought to be a second assailant and attacked or shot himself.

Indeed, his training is what he claims led him to make the right decision, which was to try to grab the armed man, and when he did, he was told (pretty brusquely) that the guy being held down was the threat.

Perhaps he knows more about it than you, huh, Mach?

What this DOES show is how Ricky was wrong about committal. If you show the signs to the right people, you get put away for psych testing. It has nothing to do with health care coverage in the least now does it? If the shooter had done something similar to show he was a threat to society ...not just that he was odd and goofy, then he too would have been committed. We can point to mentally ill all over the world that showed signs but not enough to be committed over and neither did this shooter.