The Rhetoric Continues... "Confused Thinkers" Must Be Stopped..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This guy cannot be serious..... It sounds as if he's calling depression a severe illness and saying that blogs/e-mails need to be monitored by the government.

----------------

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/10/cornell.tucson.threat.assessment/index.html?hpt=C1

(CNN) -- The rampage shooting in Arizona is another anguishing reminder that mental health is the weakest link in our ailing health care system.

Again and again we have seen horrific acts of violence committed by emotionally troubled individuals who were obviously in need of mental health treatment. Many of them made no secret of their paranoid fears, confused thinking and violent intentions.

As a nation, we might be convinced it was time to take violence prevention seriously if it were not for our recurrent amnesia soon after each one of these terrible events. A cursory Google search reveals spree shootings in just the past year in more than a dozen states, including Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

These incidents are often portrayed as shocking and unexpected, but a careful investigation reveals that most of these individuals were clearly troubled, depressed, desperate and angry.

We minimize the scope of the problem by variously pigeonholing them as "school shootings" or "workplace shootings" or "domestic shootings." Unfortunately, we now have the category of "political shootings" that could grow in size.

Terrance W. Gainer, the Senate sergeant-at-arms, reported a surge in threats to members of Congress following the health care debates. With any high profile shooting generating such public attention, there is a genuine risk of copycat crimes by other disturbed individuals.

Undoubtedly, an investigation will show multiple ways in which the Arizona shooting might have been prevented. It is reported that the suspect, Jared Loughner, had exhibited disturbed and frightening behavior while attending a community college. But colleges generally lack the resources or authority to address safety issues such as this one and often resort simply to suspending or expelling the student, transferring the problem to others.

In this case, college authorities reportedly instructed Loughner to obtain a mental health evaluation certifying that he was not a danger to himself or others before he could return to classes. This is a common strategy, and one that sadly reflects the fragmentation of efforts to help persons with mental health needs.

For years, state and local governments have looked for budget savings by cutting mental health programs and closing treatment facilities. The cost of prevention is minuscule, however, compared with the millions spent to prosecute and incarcerate one violent offender, not to mention the substantial costs sustained by the victims, many of whom will need mental health services that are not available in most communities.

In the wake of shootings from Columbine to Virginia Tech, government panels and law enforcement agencies have repeatedly urged our nation's educational institutions to adopt threat assessment strategies.

Threat assessment is an approach to violence prevention that places primary emphasis on identifying threats and intervening to resolve conflicts and address mental health needs before they escalate into violence. Our own research at the University of Virginia has found evidence that threat assessment is a practical, safe and efficient strategy. In the aftermath of fatal shootings, Virginia and Illinois mandated threat assessment teams for their state colleges.

Congressional legislation on this issue has fallen by the wayside. Now, it is painfully more relevant.

There are broader societal changes needed to improve the prevention of violence. Just raising concern about mental illness and firearms is a topical minefield in these politically charged times. Guns are a common denominator in the vast majority of spree killings, but any discussion of gun restrictions provokes accusations of subverting the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Guns are not the cause of violence, but they surely make it easy to kill -- and it is far too easy for persons with severe mental illnesses to obtain them. To be clear, gun restrictions are not the answer, but one factor that could help; effective prevention of violence is a multilevel process that requires an array of protective measures, no one of which is sufficient.

Mental illness is another legal landmine. It must be emphasized that there are many forms of mental illness and most persons suffering from a mental illness are not violent. Furthermore, patient advocacy groups do not want to see restrictions on the liberty of persons with mental illness.

Nevertheless, since the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting it has become increasingly evident that public safety laws do not give us sufficient authority to evaluate and provide treatment to threatening individuals who are not aware of their own illness. We have an underfunded mental health system laboring under a managed care approach that drastically limits mental health services and forces patients onto the streets before they are healthy or safe.

The final landmine is the First Amendment. It is beyond question to protect our right to criticize the government, but even the most conservative constitutional authorities agree with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that the First Amendment's protection of free speech does not mean unlimited speech, and that, for example, no one can create a "clear and present danger" by falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The image of a crowded theater seems a bit dated, since we now live in a nation where we can shout, blog, e-mail, chat or tweet with more than 300 million persons, and inevitably there are many in this audience who are not emotionally stable or rational.

We need a better scientific understanding of the impact of our capacity to communicate indiscriminately but powerfully and persuasively with anyone and everyone. With all of the exaggeration, accusation and misinformation that pervades political discourse, is there a point at which shouting "Fire!"-- or drawing cross hairs on a map -- can present a new "clear and present danger"?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Everything you highlighted is a serious concern, especially coming from someone who just yesterday justified this shooter and his actions, while simultaneously asserting his biggest problem was thinking too small and targeting too lowly an official.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Everything you highlighted is a serious concern, especially coming from someone who just yesterday justified this shooter and his actions, while simultaneously asserting his biggest problem was thinking too small and targeting too lowly an official.

*gasp* oh no, I think the guy is a fool for acting on his own to try and do something to absurd. Please.

Recognizing what it takes to send a message if someone wanted to, doesn't attribute to anything other than understanding of human nature.

Do horror movies bother you? Crime thrillers of events that haven't actually happened? How about books that do the same thing and take it even further? Guess what... every one of those authors 'imaginataions' are actual thoughts that they have had. They aren't just 'stories.' - Now that doesn't mean they are ever going to act on those 'fantasies,' but there's a much bigger meaning to them than meets the eye. It's written in fantasy, but for those who express themselves it's the best way they can achieve their reality and make society accept it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Keep telling yourself that Paul. Your statement yesterday speaks for itself.

It appears this person was not the "rational" assassin making a 2nd amendment remedy option to alter our government. But you were pretty clear you thought it was alright except a low quality target. Pretty irrational and disturbing.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Keep telling yourself that Paul. Your statement yesterday speaks for itself.

It appears this person was not the "rational" assassin making a 2nd amendment remedy option to alter our government. But you were pretty clear you thought it was alright except a low quality target. Pretty irrational and disturbing.

Are you disturbed by the founding fathers and the intent of the second amendment? That's exactly what you are saying.

I'd say that your comments are more disturbing. Read my post in one of the other threads today on this and you'll 'get' what I'm saying hopefully. No 'threats' are being made by myself because I get it.... damn.

Just because I understand how people think and why they do what they do and I don't find anything wrong with it, doesn't mean a damn thing other than understanding.

Everyone here is quick to jump on the bandwagon of ostracizing someone because they have an open viewpoint of the world and aren't close minded by politics, religion, etc.

I 'get' why everyone does what they do. I'm immune to it because of that understanding. I don't give a rats #### about the guy in Utah who has 3 wives. I don't give a rats #### about the guy who robs a convenience store in Los Angeles. I don't give a damn about the guy who rapes the woman in South Carolina. Why? Because at the end of the day, we have a justice system. We have a justice system that deals with these people in a proper manner. You're never going to stop them. There's not a damn thing you can do about it except punish them when they do something.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is what you said Paul. See the bolded. Quite unambiguous.

Law makers don't need a secure venue, nor should they get one unless they use their own $$$.

If you're going to get shot, then perhaps it's on you and your policies.

The second amendment is there for that reason. To overthrow an out of control government. There again though, if you're doing this in a small Arizona district, it's a damn waste of time. You want to make a big bang, you've got to think bigger than a lowly congressman and need to take out multiple higher officials.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is what you said Paul. See the bolded. Quite unambiguous.

Am I wrong? Tell me where I am wrong in what I said.

The idiocy around here of "omg ur teh t0rrorist" because someone says something like that.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Keep telling yourself that Paul. Your statement yesterday speaks for itself.

It appears this person was not the "rational" assassin making a 2nd amendment remedy option to alter our government. But you were pretty clear you thought it was alright except a low quality target. Pretty irrational and disturbing.

i certainly don't believe the 2nd amendment was put in place so citizens could shoot their representatives.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

i certainly don't believe the 2nd amendment was put in place so citizens could shoot their representatives.

and no it wasn't, which I have said if some are paying attention.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Slim is here. This should be interesting.

[slim 1,525]

blogs/e-mails need to be monitored by the government.

They already are monitored by the government. Over 60% of DOJ personnel are now dedicated to "cyber" investigations in one way or another. NSA has plans on building a supercomputer that will basically record the entire internet and store it on files to be cross-referenced with ongoing investigations. The whole thing is a lot like the old school plan that flagged certain books at the public library only it's now entered the modern era.

The only "problem" is, much like NASA's problem of trying to monitor the whole solar system, there's just too much to monitor. So, instead of them actively monitoring this terd's YouTube channel and making sense of his gobblyguk and somehow stopping the crime from happening they can only check out his MySpace profile after seizing his computer and going through his search history, etc.

Once again, reactionary police work and America's screaming to give up more rights in the name of "security."

"I don't mind if they check my search history - they should. I mean, look at people like Paul. Perhaps if they checked his search history and the FBI interrogated him for a few hours he wouldn't shoot anyone. Obviously he's a psychopathic anti-social terrorist. He should be stopped." (Nevermind the fact they're on VJ posting the same ####### you are. Oh, wait. Did I say #######? I meant to say, standard opinion shared by everyone who is normal.)

Welcome to Idiocracy. "Go away I'm 'batin."

Slim is here. This should be interesting.

I missed all the good "debate" this weekend. Sorry guys. I was busy "training."

[james&olya 1,121]

Just because I understand how people think and why they do what they do and I don't find anything wrong with it, doesn't mean a damn thing other than understanding.

Anti-social personality disorder - Ability to justify anything as long as it benefits self.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

I missed all the good "debate" this weekend. Sorry guys. I was busy "training."

remedial dishwashing?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Paul, really, did you READ the article?

ZOMG, you see a couple of words that fits with your thinking, you expand and bold the font, and voila you think you have a theory.

The article is about the state of mental health treatment in this country, of which you know jack-diddly ####### about. Maybe you should actually read the article you posted.

Just. Stupid. I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and $hit a better argument than you can.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and $hit a better argument than you can.

thanks for that visual