PDA

View Full Version : UPDATED Connecticut elementary school shooting - 20+ dead (incl gunman)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

cruisin
12-14-2012, 10:08 PM
Is it me, or is this one of the most ill-reported, by the media, tragedies, ever? The media needs to be more responsible.

Vash01
12-14-2012, 10:13 PM
That is incorrect. The parents were divorced and the father lives in another state. There are no reports that he was murdered. The brother was killed and he was found in the mother's house. The mother was killed at the school. There are reports that the guns belonged to the mother. There will be soooooo many clues that this man had mental issues after the fact which is sad. So, perhaps we should all have mandatory psych evals and those who exhibit sociopathic tendencies should be legislated since this seems to be the bigger issue.

You can't be serious. ALL of us should have mandatory psych evaluation? What kind of society would that be? You can't punish/legislate people based on tendencies, in a free society. Each person has some emotions that are negative. It's about controling our emotions but it is also important that no one other than the necessary people in the society (law enforcement, soldiers, etc.) has an easy access to guns. If people did not have guns, they won't start shooting others; instead they will find other ways to deal with their emotions. They may even throw punches, but those aren't as deadly as guns.

Vash01
12-14-2012, 10:15 PM
Is it me, or is this one of the most ill-reported, by the media, tragedies, ever? The media needs to be more responsible.

Isn't it too early to make those judgments? The media can only report what they have found out. In a complex case like this, it is going to take some time for everyone to figure out what really happened, then the whys, hows, and what can we do to prevent this in the future.

Jenny
12-14-2012, 10:20 PM
MSNBC confirmed that 20-year old Adam Lanza was the gunman.

At this point, I don't think anything is confirmed until it comes directly from the police investigators, and they are not naming the shooter yet.


Isn't it too early to make those judgments? The media can only report what they have found out. In a complex case like this, it is going to take some time for everyone to figure out what really happened, then the whys, hows, and what can we do to prevent this in the future.

But what we have seen this afternoon is that the media has reported many "facts" that have turned out to be incorrect. As Habs noted earlier, in the rush to be the first, media is reporting information that has not been officially verified. In the old days you could do that to some extent, and post a correction later. But now, any "fact" is repeated hundredfold by other media outlets and numerous other online sources, so I think they should be a lot more careful about what they report as "fact."

rfisher
12-14-2012, 10:23 PM
You can't be serious. ALL of us should have mandatory psych evaluation? What kind of society would that be? You can't punish/legislate people based on tendencies, in a free society. Each person has some emotions that are negative. It's about controling our emotions but it is also important that no one other than the necessary people in the society (law enforcement, soldiers, etc.) has an easy access to guns. If people did not have guns, they won't start shooting others; instead they will find other ways to deal with their emotions. They may even throw punches, but those aren't as deadly as guns.

Actually, that is the exact issue being discussed on several other forums. No doubt a forensic examination of this young man's past will identify flash points that were ignored by his family, friends, teachers, etc., Over and over and over the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental dz. Yet, we don't address that. It's easy to get on the gun control soapbox and try to convince yourself that will stop the violence, but it won't. It won't stop people from beating their child or spouse to death. Lawsuits were filed against Virginia Tech for not identifying mental health issues in the shooter or for providing him with mental health care. Just wait until all the data is out about this guy. I was being facetious about requiring a psych eval, but that's the only way to identify potential sociopaths and prevent them from acting. And, then it wouldn't work, because a true sociopath is able to totally fake a psych eval.

cruisin
12-14-2012, 10:26 PM
Isn't it too early to make those judgments? The media can only report what they have found out. In a complex case like this, it is going to take some time for everyone to figure out what really happened, then the whys, hows, and what can we do to prevent this in the future.

Yes, but it seems that this has been extraordinarily mixed up. I realize that they need to sort through things. But, maybe they should hold back "facts" until they are sure about them. I had the TV on this morning and first it was unconfirmed gun shots at a Connecticut school, then Confirmed gun shots, no one injured, then gunman dead one teacher shot in foot and taken to hospital, then gunman dead 3 hospitalized, then gunman and 1 child dead 3 hospitalized, then.... It seems like they should have waited to get more information, rather than changing it continuously. Even getting the right brother. Is the information about the girlfriend right? If the girlfriend is missing - her family must be frantic. But, what if she's fine and uninvolved, just not where the media expects her to be. Maybe I'm just frustrated with all of the changes and the fact that every 5 minutes this horror gets even worse. Maybe I'm transferring my frustration to media adding to the pain of the victim's families.

Prancer
12-14-2012, 10:28 PM
Actually, that is the exact issue being discussed on several other forums. No doubt a forensic examination of this young man's past will identify flash points that were ignored by his family, friends, teachers, etc., Over and over and over the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental dz. Yet, we don't address that. It's easy to get on the gun control soapbox and try to convince yourself that will stop the violence, but it won't. It won't stop people from beating their child or spouse to death. Lawsuits were filed against Virginia Tech for not identifying mental health issues in the shooter or for providing him with mental health care. Just wait until all the data is out about this guy.

While I am absolutely in favor of gun control, I think that mental health care in this country is at least as big a problem. But I don't know that behavior is predictable enough to make mandatory evals any kind of viable solution. Yes, the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental illnesses. But the perpetrators of violence have also, more of than not, been seen by mental health professionals as well--and some were under treatment at the time of their attacks. I don't think most people ignore the signs; it's that there isn't a whole lot people can do about them. You can't lock people up against their will. You can't force an adult into treatment. You can't make people take anti-psychotic medication. And so on.

skateboy
12-14-2012, 10:38 PM
Horrifying. I can't imagine how terrified those children must have been.

Jenny
12-14-2012, 10:40 PM
I fear a world where we are all to be tested and labeled as to our mental health and likelihood to commit crimes.

Who decides what the criteria are? Who ensures that the evaluators are qualified and unbiassed? Who ensures consistency in how evaluations are conducted? Who keeps these very personal and potentially damaging records? Who has access to them - police, governments, social services, schools, employers? Can a person or their family contest their evaluation or ask to be reevaluated after treatment or when circumstances may have changed? Will evaluations be ongoing? How often? Will this affect a person's ability to get health insurance, social assistance, a job, credit, into schools, to vote? How is the system kept free of corruption? What happens when the government changes and the system is changed or dissolved or reassigned - what happens to all those records? What safeguards will there be in place to keep this information safe from those who would misuse it? Can parents/caregivers/lawyers/doctors have access to this info? Are the records sealed or destroyed when someone dies, or can they be requested by heirs and researchers? For that matter, would the data be available to researchers who develop new therapies or drugs, or to those who fund social programming and law enforcement?

Vash01
12-14-2012, 10:44 PM
Actually, that is the exact issue being discussed on several other forums. No doubt a forensic examination of this young man's past will identify flash points that were ignored by his family, friends, teachers, etc., Over and over and over the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental dz. Yet, we don't address that. It's easy to get on the gun control soapbox and try to convince yourself that will stop the violence, but it won't. It won't stop people from beating their child or spouse to death. Lawsuits were filed against Virginia Tech for not identifying mental health issues in the shooter or for providing him with mental health care. Just wait until all the data is out about this guy. I was being facetious about requiring a psych eval, but that's the only way to identify potential sociopaths and prevent them from acting. And, then it wouldn't work, because a true sociopath is able to totally fake a psych eval.

Below is a quote from your post:
"So, perhaps we should all have mandatory psych evals and those who exhibit sociopathic tendencies should be legislated since this seems to be the bigger issue."

You make it sound so easy; ALL of us should go through mandatory psy eval and we will find the potential culprits. You can't legislate tendencies. You are essentially ignoring what guns can do (KILL) and instead you believe that psychologists are going to be able to catch all the people with mental illness. Many people who are not clinically mentally ill can go over the cliff, and those are the most dangerous ones. It will be very easy to label someone whose behavior you don't like as 'mentally ill' and ruin his/her life, using your suggestions. I for one, will not subject myself to this mandatory psych eval, and how often are you going to conduct this? Every year/month/day?

Angelskates
12-14-2012, 10:45 PM
And Scotland responded with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. And there have been no more mass shootings

The same thing happened after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia. One was enough.


While I am absolutely in favor of gun control, I think that mental health care in this country is at least as big a problem. But I don't know that behavior is predictable enough to make mandatory evals any kind of viable solution. Yes, the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental illnesses. But the perpetrators of violence have also, more of than not, been seen by mental health professionals as well--and some were under treatment at the time of their attacks. I don't think most people ignore the signs; it's that there isn't a whole lot people can do about them. You can't lock people up against their will. You can't force an adult into treatment. You can't make people take anti-psychotic medication. And so on.

ITA. Martin Bryant, the one who caused the Port Athur massacre, had mental health problems and at one stage was on medication. Then he went off them. There were warning signs, but police can't act on the, when a crime hasn't been committed, and doctors can't institionalise just because someone goes off their meds.

Anita18
12-14-2012, 10:46 PM
While I am absolutely in favor of gun control, I think that mental health care in this country is at least as big a problem. But I don't know that behavior is predictable enough to make mandatory evals any kind of viable solution. Yes, the perpetrators of violence are found to have mental illnesses. But the perpetrators of violence have also, more of than not, been seen by mental health professionals as well--and some were under treatment at the time of their attacks. I don't think most people ignore the signs; it's that there isn't a whole lot people can do about them. You can't lock people up against their will. You can't force an adult into treatment. You can't make people take anti-psychotic medication. And so on.
I don't think they should be sold automatic weapons, though. Fine, in this country it's a right to own a firearm. Then get a hunting rifle that can only fire one round at a time. (Or whatever the equivalent is - I know next to nothing about guns.) Just because it's your right to own a gun doesn't mean you should be able to legally buy one whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Vash01
12-14-2012, 10:47 PM
At this point, I don't think anything is confirmed until it comes directly from the police investigators, and they are not naming the shooter yet.



But what we have seen this afternoon is that the media has reported many "facts" that have turned out to be incorrect. As Habs noted earlier, in the rush to be the first, media is reporting information that has not been officially verified. In the old days you could do that to some extent, and post a correction later. But now, any "fact" is repeated hundredfold by other media outlets and numerous other online sources, so I think they should be a lot more careful about what they report as "fact."

The media did not say these were 'facts'; they were reporting what they had found up to that point, and I didn't see them saying this is the final story. What I saw/heard on the videos at different times was : "xxx, what have you found so far? or have they found ......" and so on. They did go on correcting themselves as more info came in. What did you expect them to do? Talk about something else while this was going on? We all have enough sense to know that it takes time to get the full story.

Crusin, in her characteristic way, called this 'the worst ever reporting'.

BlueRidge
12-14-2012, 10:51 PM
The vast majority of people with severe mental illness will not be violent. That is what makes it so difficult to deal pre-emptively with mental illness as a factor in mass shootings. I don't have any expert knowledge but it doesn't seem that mental health providers have any concrete way of predicting who will be violent.

We've seen this with other recent shootings. I believe it was mentioned that it is usually in the early stages of severe mental illness before the full situation is known to mental health providers that this kind of violence manifests.

I think anything that can be done that helps to identify and get help for individuals who may become violent should be, but it isn't likely to prevent shootings from taking place.

rfisher
12-14-2012, 10:53 PM
Below is a quote from your post:
"So, perhaps we should all have mandatory psych evals and those who exhibit sociopathic tendencies should be legislated since this seems to be the bigger issue."

You make it sound so easy; ALL of us should go through mandatory psy eval and we will find the potential culprits. You can't legislate tendencies. You are essentially ignoring what guns can do (KILL) and instead you believe that psychologists are going to be able to catch all the people with mental illness. Many people who are not clinically mentally ill can go over the cliff, and those are the most dangerous ones. It will be very easy to label someone whose behavior you don't like as 'mentally ill' and ruin his/her life, using your suggestions. I for one, will not subject myself to this mandatory psych eval, and how often are you going to conduct this? Every year/month/day?

I didn't say it was easy at all. I guess you missed the I was being facetious statement. See Prancer's post with which ITA. I most certainly am not ignoring the facts about guns. I suspect I know way more than you do on the subject and I'll just leave it at that.