Sense and sensibilities

Mental health policy underlies Navy Yard shooting, not gun laws

  • Follow Editorials

The default position of liberals after every mass shooting tragedy – gun control – makes less sense than ever in the case of the Washington Navy Yard massacre.

We know it’s an easy, feel-good knee-jerk reaction. Fact is, the blood hadn’t stopped running in D.C. by the time actor Henry Winkler sent out a sarcastic tweet about the need for gun control.

But what amount of gun control would have prevented an episode by an inarguably deranged man with approved access to a secure military installation where guns are – guess what – already banned? And in a city that Guns and Ammo magazine ranks as the strictest in the nation on guns?

It may feel good to seek gun control after such tragedies. But it actually would do nothing to prevent such calamities, and would only disarm sane, law-abiding Americans.

Meanwhile, this blame-the-implement mentality tends to let real culpability slide out the back door.

The Navy Yard shooter, Aaron Alexis, had serious mental illness issues, including reported paranoia and hearing voices. Reports indicate he’d been treated by the Veterans Administration for mental illness.

That’s one thing: Even after multiple mass shootings in Newtown and Aurora and elsewhere by people with easily discernible mental illness problems, this country has done next to nothing to reform its mental health system and laws.

But in addition, it’s inconceivable to us that after the massacre at Fort Hood by a raving radical Muslim that the Pentagon and defense industries wouldn’t have done a better job of
policing their ranks and screening out the lunatics.

As noted above, Alexis wore red flags like a sash. How could this guy have maintained a security clearance? If the VA and defense industry aren’t allowed to compare notes on potential threats, the law needs to change – not only to allow it, but to mandate it!

Far from taking guns away from people, this government actually needs to re-examine whether it’s smart to disarm members of the military on bases. Of all places, our men and women in uniform, and those civilians who work side by side with them, should not be forced to be sitting ducks to lone gunmen. How many lives might have been saved if Alexis’ victims had been armed?

As some have wryly noted in social media, it’s interesting – if not blatantly hypocritical – that the Obama administration is arming the rebels in Syria while promoting the disarming of law-abiding Americans.

To put a finer point on that: By definition, gun laws disarm only the law-abiding.

We can have that debate yet again, ad nauseam. But it misses the point. And all the while, our mental health laws are antiquated and our mental health infrastructure is more neglected than our crumbling bridges.

Guns aren’t the issue. The issue is dealing with the small fraction of the mentally ill who pose a danger to others.

It’s an indelicate matter that must be dealt with delicately. But it must be dealt with.

As soon as we start worrying more about sense than sensibilities.

Comments (120) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Truth Matters
6735
Points
Truth Matters 09/18/13 - 10:02 am
2
5
"As some have wryly noted in

"As some have wryly noted in social media, it’s interesting – if not blatantly hypocritical – that the Obama administration is arming the rebels in Syria while promoting the disarming of law-abiding Americans."

Not true.

Just like some tell those who voice concern regarding unnecessarily strict voter registration laws, if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem?

Truth Matters
6735
Points
Truth Matters 09/18/13 - 10:07 am
4
3
Mental health checks will be

Mental health checks will be standard under ACA.
Since guns are not the issue, who could oppose that?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:09 am
5
2
So who decides what mental
Unpublished

So who decides what mental illness would disqualify you from excercising this particular right? What other rights shall we deny based on mental illness?....voting?

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:09 am
3
1
Insults

"We know it’s an easy, feel-good knee-jerk reaction. Fact is, the blood hadn’t stopped running in D.C. by the time actor Henry Winkler sent out a sarcastic tweet about the need for gun control."

OK, you conservs. just hurl insults our way. No, I am just kidding! I stated there were 3 or 4 issues that I am still liberal about. This is kind of one. Cryptically speaking, "I will never get a lisence for a gun." This statement is true, it does make us feel better about tridgedies like this, BUT many ultra-liberals don't stop to think it through!! Like I used to be!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:15 am
1
4
Quote from editorial

"But what amount of gun control would have prevented an episode by an inarguably deranged man with approved access to a secure military installation where guns are – guess what – already banned"

First, I think ALL government instalations are going to have to go to a system like what they do at SRS.

Second, here again; I am not sure there is are written gun laws about the mentaly ill. Obviously, if there are these laws, MANY PEOPLE are very dirilict in their duties!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:18 am
4
2
T3....the DC navy yard does
Unpublished

T3....the DC navy yard does the same RANDOM checks for weapons at their gates as SRS.

And again....who decides what mental illnesses would disqualify you for gun ownership? You are talking about a constitutional right, so you better be really sure before you go denying it to people.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:22 am
1
4
Quote from editorial

"But it actually would do nothing to prevent such calamities, and would only disarm sane, law-abiding Americans"

I DO NOT agree with this statement AT ALL!! I believe, what we all can agree on, the laws concerning mentaly ill people WOULD NOT effect SANE people!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:25 am
4
2
No...we can NOT agree on
Unpublished

No...we can NOT agree on that. As I said, who decides who is mentally ill. Back in the 60's homosexuality was considered a mental illness. All that you have to do is get a government sponsored "doctor" to declare you mentally ill...for whatever reason.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:26 am
3
1
Quote from editorial

"Meanwhile, this blame-the-implement mentality tends to let real culpability slide out the back door"

I assume that this statement means, "Don't blame the gun, blame the person." Over the last several months, you all have taught that this is how it is, and liberals need to see it this way, as well.

CobaltGeorge
157758
Points
CobaltGeorge 09/18/13 - 10:28 am
2
2
Yea

Like denying thousands of American Fighting men/women that are returning home with the possibly of PTSD or when the government gets control of your medical records and find those that are complaining of change of mood while trying to stop smoking.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:30 am
6
2
Is an alcoholic sane? Is a
Unpublished

Is an alcoholic sane? Is a person who has a bout with depression sane? Is a person with turrets sane? Is a person who was treated for PTSD sane? Is someone with an eating disorder sane? These are all mental illnesses that could disqualify someone. Be specific as to who is to have their constitutional rights denied.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:31 am
2
2
Quote from editorial

"this country has done next to nothing to reform its mental health system and laws"

I don't know about the laws, BUT the mental health care system is very adiquate, it's just like being an alchoholic, the peoson MUST acknowledge the problem and WANT to get help!!

Bizkit
31230
Points
Bizkit 09/18/13 - 10:33 am
4
0
The right to bear arms is a

The right to bear arms is a legal constitutional right-no different than the right to free speech or right to religion -it is the law. Like Obamacare is the law and people yelp over appeal. If any of these laws can be changed then all of them can be.

CobaltGeorge
157758
Points
CobaltGeorge 09/18/13 - 10:35 am
3
2
Angela

We have parallel minds.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:37 am
2
1
Quote from editorial

"As noted above, Alexis wore red flags like a sash. How could this guy have maintained a security clearance?"

The issue of the security clearence BRINGS UP a BIG PROBLEM!! The top clearence, when I was at SRS was what we called a blue badge. It took me well over a year to get mine, and yet I was told that some foriegn people had gotten their's in much less than a year!! Go figure.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:38 am
3
2
"Sorry sir, you were
Unpublished

"Sorry sir, you were diagnosed with OCD, we can't allow you to vote."

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 09/18/13 - 10:41 am
4
1
This should be ALL you need to know about liberal thinking!!

Liberal's want to completely ban ALL firearms because they are used to kill people. Yet, they openly argue for the legalization of illicit narcotics; including cocaine, heroine and meth!!

Each year in the United States an average of 15,000 people are murdered using firearms.

Each year in the United States approximately 25,000-30,000 people die from the use of illegal narcotics!!

ENOUGH SAID!!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:45 am
1
3
Quote from editorial

"that the Obama administration is arming the rebels in Syria while promoting the disarming of law-abiding Americans"

Most of you know that I am not as "pro-Obama" as I used to be. That being said, "He sees Syria as the war zone that it is. The US is trying to level "the playing field" for the freedom fighters. Guns are much easier to give out than they are to take back. Liberals, on the level as Obama, see that more gun control is needed."

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 09/18/13 - 10:49 am
4
1
George

I agree with everything you said EXCEPT; where you said you weren't commenting anymore to these gun grabbing liberals. Please don't stop commenting on threads about gun control. That's what THEY want everyone to do is get frustrated with it and pipe down!! We NEED everyone's voice on here and if that is only in the comments section of my local paper, so be it!! We need ALL our voices heard, because WE are the majority!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:49 am
4
2
t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:49 am
1
4
Quote from editorial

"Guns aren’t the issue. The issue is dealing with the small fraction of the mentally ill who pose a danger to others"

I whole-heartedly agree!! But as long as there is modern day Dr. / patient confidentialty, keeping tabs on the mentaly ill will be very difficult.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:51 am
4
2
Don't worry.... The ACA will
Unpublished

Don't worry.... The ACA will do away with Dr./Patient confidentiality....as a necessity for the system to work.

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 09/18/13 - 10:51 am
4
1
Humble Angela

Don't forget those mentally ill who gather once a week to worship some invisible sky fairy!! Do you realize how crazy that is, to worship something that you absolutely can NOT SEE??? Talk about mental illness!! Those people will NEVER be allowed to own firearms under the One World Government!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:52 am
4
2
You are correct,
Unpublished

You are correct, myfather...those who hear their prayers answered are clearly just "hearing voices in their heads."

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:52 am
1
3
Truth Matters @ 2:07

"Mental health checks will be standard under ACA.
Since guns are not the issue, who could oppose that?"

Again with the Dr. / patient confidentially.

nofanofobama
6820
Points
nofanofobama 09/18/13 - 10:55 am
4
1
there is a difference in laws

there is a difference in laws passed by congress and the rights in the constitution...laws that violate the constitutional rights are turned over by the courts all the time...since obumler and holder who swore to uphold the constitution and the laws, now decide which they want to enforce or not to enforce ...laws are meaningless ...look at obumler care...the constant changes to a estblished law...we need to enforce all the laws ....no one is above the constitution or the law...we have remedies to change either, lawfully

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 09/18/13 - 10:55 am
3
1
Yes, that's scary isn't it?

Yes, that's scary isn't it? People walking around hearing voices in their head and believing it's a God talking to them. Then they actually get on their knees and talk back to him, and there isn't anything there!! Ooooh, the humanity!! These people must NEVER be allowed to own knives, not to mention firearms.

I hope everyone is detecting my sarcasm!!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 09/18/13 - 10:56 am
1
1
HA @ 10:52

"You are correct, myfather...those who hear their prayers answered are clearly just "hearing voices in their heads.""

HA, I thought you were a better believer than that. BUT THAT is a whole other issue that could take a whole day to debate!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:56 am
3
2
Loud and clear, myfather15.
Unpublished

Loud and clear, myfather15.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 09/18/13 - 10:57 am
3
2
How do I use the sarcasm
Unpublished

How do I use the sarcasm font?

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs