I'm glad he's dead. Amazingly he was smart enough to breath.

It's better that Montano was killed than him having killed anyone in the movie theater, and clearly it was a justified shooting by the responding officer.

But, I don't know what he was thinking when he went to the theater yesterday or if he understood what he was doing. He doesn't seem to have been organized with a solid plan, but maybe he was.

Anyway, if you've never known or worked with truly paranoid schizophrenics, I think it's hard to imagine the sadness and torment of those suffering from the brain disease (and the helplessness of the people who love them). Getting them to willingly stay on meds is a huge challenge because they often aren't clear-headed enough when left to their own devices -- vicious cycle.

That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I think another part of the problem is the desensitizing of the public. Compare how the country reacted to Columbine to that of the most recent theater shootings. Everyone was more concerned about a poached lion a few days later than the shootings.

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I agree; it's definitely a problem.

Way back in the day, some people were committed to mental institutions too easily because they were weird, unwanted, a nuisance and/or their illness was not understood. Some of the patients were not treated at all, and there was a lot of abuse/neglect in the state mental institutions.

Now, it's almost impossible to get adults committed to a mental health facility against their will, even when it's in their own best interest and that of society. So, there are a hell of a lot of mentally ill people in jails/prisons or living on the streets.

People with paranoid schizophrenia and other severe diseases/disorders often won't believe they need medication/care, so offering it and making them responsible for carrying through isn't a valid permanent solution.

Anyway, I've ready many cases of people who committed horrendous crimes; people who themselves or whose families knew they were losing it and sought help, only to be turned away for lack of openings/beds in the too-few facilities. Some of them had succeeded in getting admitted at some point, only to have doctors write them a prescription and release them back into society shortly thereafter.

I say give them all pellet guns and point them towards a recruiting center.

Alright Maggot. You win.

No more serious discussion about possible factors contributing to the crime, in the crime forum.

Carry on knucklehead...

(08-06-2015, 02:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: people who themselves or whose families knew they were losing it and sought help, only to be turned away for lack of openings/beds in the too-few facilities. Some of them had succeeded in getting admitted at some point, only to have doctors write them a prescription and release them back into society shortly thereafter.

This comment made me recall the lawmaker whose son shot him in Virginia, I think it was. He tried very hard to get some help for his kid and was turned away.

(08-06-2015, 01:58 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I think another part of the problem is the desensitizing of the public. Compare how the country reacted to Columbine to that of the most recent theater shootings. Everyone was more concerned about a poached lion a few days later than the shootings.

I don't think you have the ability to accurately assess how everyone feels or thinks Gunnar, nor the ability to gauge peoples' degrees of concern in relation to different events happening simultaneously. Most people aren't one-dimensional.

As for desensitization in general, I agree that the more people are exposed to a horrific type of event or behavior, the less shocking it becomes. But, I don't think that less shock necessarily equates to less concern.

Also, there are a growing number of people who believe that attention is one of the motivators for mass/spree killers. So, they don't display interest in those murderers or their crimes like they did back in the Columbine days.

Lots of factors at play in determining what stories people choose to weigh-in on.

(08-06-2015, 03:13 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 02:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: people who themselves or whose families knew they were losing it and sought help, only to be turned away for lack of openings/beds in the too-few facilities. Some of them had succeeded in getting admitted at some point, only to have doctors write them a prescription and release them back into society shortly thereafter.

This comment made me recall the lawmaker whose son shot him in Virginia, I think it was. He tried very hard to get some help for his kid and was turned away.

That was a sad case. I'm not glad that Senator Creigh Deeds' son is dead. I'm glad he didn't succeed in killing his dad before he killed himself though.

Since the incident two years ago, Creigh Deeds has been working on legislation to improve the emergency mental health system.

Deeds believes the hospital should not have let his son walk out the door after calling only one in-patient facility and being told there were no beds available and holds the hospital officials largely responsible for his son's death.

(08-06-2015, 02:59 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Alright Maggot. You win.

No more serious discussion about possible factors contributing to the crime, in the crime forum.

Carry on knucklehead...

I'm sorry. The problem is that I see no way any law or mental institute or psychiatrist will ever be able to tell if a nut will decide to go nuts. We can try and end this stuff but the only real way that I can see to alleviate any shootings in the future will be to rely on the awareness of individuals. If you are walking through a cave you are wary of spiders. The same is true in todays sad world that people need to be wary at almost every corner they turn. To be oblivious to danger is foolhardy.
I'm not saying we need to be paranoid to the every day occurrences that everyone experiences every day but people should be able to say to themselves that "this could happen to me" and not be so shocked when it does that it immobilizes them like a deer in the headlights.

Sure, psychiatrists can't always tell if an untreated or smooth-talking hothead is going to lose his/her shift, irrationally pull a gun, and shoot someone. No disagreement there. The brain is tricky business.

Still, some violence due to mental illness is predictable and goes unaddressed. At least monthly I read about a person getting killed after being denied a protective/restraining order against someone who was making threats, acting erratically, and had weapons. "No danger to self or others", said the professionals prior to denying protection or releasing the person back into society. Some violent/crazy people can put up a good front, I know. But, some of the killers in question were obviously on the edge and weren't committed or restricted in any way because the doctors and/or judges were too liberal IMO, or because of limitations in the current laws.

Anyway, Montano, the Nashville theater shooter, was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and confined to treatment four different times. I do think there are ways to keep more such people, many of whom openly display violent aggression or intent towards others, off the streets or medically monitored. That would involve legal changes in the mental health system. I hope those changes are forthcoming.

P.s. Yep, I'm very aware that I could become a victim of almost any type of crime. So, I stay alert and avoid certain types of situations to minimize the risk. However, I don't live in fear over it and I do understand that some people are truly mentally ill through no fault of their own.

Is it me or have more mass shootings occurred while a Democrat inhabits the White House?

We need a governmental study on the country's mental health during a Democrat presidency.

(08-06-2015, 01:58 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I think another part of the problem is the desensitizing of the public. Compare how the country reacted to Columbine to that of the most recent theater shootings. Everyone was more concerned about a poached lion a few days later than the shootings.

Valid point! For some.

(08-06-2015, 02:27 PM)Maggot Wrote: I say give them all pellet guns and point them towards a recruiting center.

I'm offended! You bastard! I won't go into details here because it personal family info but I have several mentally ill people in my family. They do get help but to think you'd want then dead is disgusting! IMO

(08-06-2015, 05:18 PM)JsMom Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:58 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I think another part of the problem is the desensitizing of the public. Compare how the country reacted to Columbine to that of the most recent theater shootings. Everyone was more concerned about a poached lion a few days later than the shootings.

Valid point! For some.

Okay guys, I'm curious about the valid point, for some.

How does the contention that some of the public is desensitized to mass murders these days contribute to mass murders these days? I'm missing the connection; I don't see the former as being a problem that contributes to the latter.

Are you suggesting that if people were more shocked by mass murders or less concerned about a poached lion that there would be fewer mass murders (or more treatment for mentally ill people)?

(08-06-2015, 03:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Deeds believes the hospital should not have let his son walk out the door after calling only one in-patient facility and being told there were no beds available and holds the hospital officials largely responsible for his son's death.

It's a horrible thing when room can be made for criminals but not people in desperate need of mental health services. You don't see jails turning away violent criminals.

(08-06-2015, 05:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 05:18 PM)JsMom Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:58 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 01:27 PM)JsMom Wrote: That's the problem. These mentally ill people can't get any fucking help, although, I know some wouldn't take it if they could.

I think another part of the problem is the desensitizing of the public. Compare how the country reacted to Columbine to that of the most recent theater shootings. Everyone was more concerned about a poached lion a few days later than the shootings.

Valid point! For some.

Okay guys, I'm curious about the valid point, for some.

How does the contention that some of the public is desensitized to mass murders these days contribute to mass murders these days? I'm missing the connection; I don't see the former as being a problem that contributes to the latter.

Are you suggesting that if people were more shocked by mass murders or less concerned about a poached lion that there would be fewer mass murders (or more treatment for mentally ill people)?

It's a regular occurrence now. It never used to be. Information gets to people faster now, for better or worse. We hear about a lot more things that are going on then we used to, again for better or worse. The trend now seems to be going out (and taking others with you) and the world will know who you are. When once you were insignificant, now you are famous for a day or two. Then some asshole shoots a lion and everyone forgets about you until the next public shooting. Then you will be mentioned again. Briefly, but mentioned just the same.

I've fantasized about shooting the shooter.

Yeah, so you're just talking about people showing less interest or losing interest more quickly these days in regards to news coverage (and/or events).

I understand that you think that equates to desensitization. That's probably true in some cases.

What I didn't understand is how that is "part of the problem" when it comes to mass murders, as you originally posted. If anything, I'd imagine it would make for fewer mass murders if one believes that attention/fame is what the killers are after.

Anyway, thanks for responding Gunnar. I understand what you're saying about desensitization effecting the public's response to mass murder (not that desensitization is a problem which contributes to mass murder).