Multiple deaths, including children, at Connecticut school shooting

The apolitical, nonpartisan modern history of US mental health care.

How do we build a mental health apparatus that stops Adam Lanza?

And are all (mass) shooters mentally ill by definition?




(And thank you for reopening this thread.)

 

My take is that we are not going to stop an Adam Lanza once, for the lack of a more articulate way to put this, that ship has sailed. Once Lanza decided he was going to make his statement for the world to see, no gun control law or anything else (except incarceration) was going to stop him.

I think this country has a shameful record when it comes to the mentally ill. While Reagan has been pointed to as a particular failure, pretty much every president in American history has had shortcomings when dealing with the mentally ill or criminally insane. However, this is not something I am hanging on any administration....not St. Ronnie, not Carter, not Clinton and not Obama. Congress controls the purse and has the biggest say in the spending agenda.

Not sure how many people are familiar with the Alaska Mental Health bill from the 1950's. It's a fascinating piece of legislation, one loved and hated by people on both sides of the aisle, that was pretty much stigmatized out of existence because people started to look at it as kind of a "Siberia" for the mentally ill in this country. Long, long story short...an area was set up in Alaska to send the mentally ill to live and be treated. When cured they would be sent home to their own state. I could never do the story of this law justice, so look it up when you can.

This law is a great example of why this country is lacking when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill. The far-out members of both political spectrums could not even decide if they should or shouldn't support this bill. After it was passed, much of the land and money for its implementation was stripped because some of the land allocated would have been "better suited" for tourism and to generate money for other things. This bill also created some very strange bedfellows, and all kinds of conspiracy theories emerged.

The point of all this is that, especially in this political climate, I do not think the steps necessary to seriously address our mental health issues are "winning" political issues, so they end up on the back burner. You will get move votes waving an AR-15 in the air and screaming "THESE ARE KILLING OUR CHILDREN!" or "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" than you will from working on an actual fix for our mental health failings. The Alaska Mental Health Act is an example of what happens...you end up getting accused of wanting to send the mentally ill to concentration camps, instead of getting praised for taking steps towards working on the problem...regardless of how radical those steps may be.

I also want to thank Moddy for re-opening this thread.

 

Don't misunderstand, I am not advocating this law. Just pointing out what a political hot potato this is. This law, if you research it, started out pretty mundane and ended up chaotic. It's a good look at what can happen in the political process.

 

We saw the 9/11 skydives and that passion for going after radical Islam kind of slipped.

 

?

 

I refuse to lock this thread upon citing a political link.

 

What?

You seem to be implying that having seen photos and video from 9/11, the US didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq and go to war with Al Queda.

Surely that's not what you're saying.

 

I'm saying that the liberals in Washington criticized the leader of that response at every turn.

 

I don't need those pictures, and most Americans don't either. There's beginning to be some consensus on what needs to be done.

It's just an arduous, time-consuming process that may take a few election cycles to get done.

 

I don't recall too much criticism, outside of the most furthest left, of the decision to go into Afghanistan. Heck, the leader of the response had something like a 90 percent approval rating at one point.