Committment, and the Blood of Innocents

| December 24, 2012

A bit over a week ago, a guy named Adam Lanza snapped.  He went full-blown batshit crazy, murdered his own mother, then stole her guns and used them to commit mass murder of innocents.  He then killed himself.

Ever since, the “liberals” and “progressives” have been virtually falling over each other to be seen advocating more gun laws.  How dare Lanza’s mother have owned those “evil” guns!   Those guns were to blame for this tragedy!  And in true “never let a crisis go to waste” spirit, we’re already hearing rumblings about more Federal legislation to restrict exercise of rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment vice any actual discussion of what happened.

Let me offer a theory to explain this.  They’re following the playbook.  In part, this is a deliberate attempt to change the subject and divert attention from the actual cause of the Sandy Hook massacre.

In fact, the political left is directly responsible for the massacre at Sandy Hook – not law-abiding gun owners or morally-neutral things called guns.  I’ll explain why.

By all accounts Adam Lanza was a profoundly mentally disturbed youngster.  While he allegedly had been determined to have Asperger’s syndrome, very obviously that wasn’t all that was wrong with Lanza.  His actions prove that quite clearly.

Lanza’s mental health issues appear to have become more pronounced as he got older.  In fact, Lanza was so profoundly disturbed that his own mother – who’d consistently supported and protected her son, pulling  him out of school and home-schooling him when his issues started to become severe – was apparently at her wit’s end.  She was reportedly in the process of attempting to have her son institutionalized at the time her son murdered her.  Indeed, her attempt to have Adam Lanza committed is thought by some to have been the trigger for his rampage.

Now, here’s something you won’t see much of in the media.  Under Connecticut law, Lanza’s mother had little to no chance of getting him involuntarily committed.  It seems Connecticut law in general only allows people to be involuntarily committed after they have harmed themselves or others.  Before they hurt someone?  In general, you can file that under “Not Gonna Happen”.

That’s bad enough, but it gets even “better”.  It also seems that Connecticut considered a change to its laws earlier this year that would have allowed Lanza to have been involuntarily committed.  However, the proposed law did not pass the Connecticut legislature.  It was defeated.

Connecticut is quite liberal.  It is today one of the bluest of the Blue states.  The Democratic Party rules there with an iron grip.  It currently has in excess of a 60% majority in each house of the Connecticut General Assembly:  22 of 36 seats in the Connecticut Senate, and 99 of 151 seats in the House.  The current Governor is also a Democrat.  Clearly, laws in Connecticut pass or fail as the Connecticut Democratic Party desires.

I’m not a fan of making it easy to involuntarily commit a person to a mental institution.  That’s an extreme step; it should be rare, and should always be the option of last resort. So long as a person isn’t a danger to themselves or others, and is capable of caring for themselves, more power to them – whether we consider them crazy or not.

But society does have the right to protect itself.  Some people are simply full-blown batshit crazy and are also dangers to themselves and others.  There should be a legal mechanism – one having  appropriate legal due process and other safeguards – to allow dangerous lunatics to be removed from society before they injure or kill themselves or others.

One doesn’t need to wait for the car to roll over the cliff before hitting the brakes.  By then, it’s too to save the driver – or the folks at the bottom of the cliff who get hit.

In practice, such a mechanism does not exist in Connecticut today.  The Democratically-controlled Connecticut legislature had the chance to institute such a measure earlier this year – and refused.

Viewed in this context, it’s easy to see why the liberal side of the political spectrum is beating the gun control drum so hard.  IMO at least part of the reason is that they’re doing so to distract attention from the fact that the blood of innocents is on their hands.  They’re simply trying to shift that blame to someone else.

They could have acted to take Adam Lanza off the street earlier this year. And they consciously decided to let that remain impossible, consequences be damned.

So if you want to see who’s truly responsible for the murdered innocents at Sandy Hook, my liberal “brethren” – just look in a mirror.  You’re the ones who decided that letting lunatics live free among you – danger to others be damned – was more important than the lives of innocents.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns, Liberals suck

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ex-PH2 says:

    I checked a few places that have been capturing and posting the rhetoric coming from the left. Here is a sampling from Twitter:

    All NRA members should be shot!!!! I thank you, that’s one of my own !!— sam tarling 12-16-2012

    Murder every NRA member – Bitter Old St Nick 12-14-2012

    My dad, who was a Republican when I was a kid, just told me every member of the NRA should be rounded up and charged with murder.— Philip Porado 12-15-2012

    Solution: Get every member of the NRA to stand in a circle, aim & shoot! VF Pete 12-14-2012

    This is something you can’t take back, especially when you publish it. Those are all screen captures.

    This next one is from a Democratic party precinct chairman down in Texas:
    Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them? — John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012
    After calling for shooting NRA members “and everyone who defends them,” Cobarruvias turned around and called the target of his incitement to violence a “domestic terrorist organization.”

    Then he tried to apologize: “I think my emotions got the best of me on this one. I don’t think it was the right thing to do. And that’s just my personal opinion, I don’t think it was the right thing,” he said.

    Cobaruvvias deleted the offensive tweet and issued an apology of sorts, but his original message was captured and posted at Big Jolly Politics.

    “My apologies to those I offended concerning the #nra. My emotions on the subject got the better of me. It didn’t help,” he said.

    Bryan Preston of PJ Media, however, says that he doesn’t believe Cobaruvvias’ apology is “heartfelt” since he called the group a terrorist organization in another tweet the very same day.

    Cobaruvvias also posted a message on his Facebook page saying that supporters of the group ” need to [be] wiped off the face of the earth.”

    Preston also said that Cobaruvvias’ “public threat against so many elected officials could constitute a terroristic threat,” since a number of elected officials, including the “governor, both of its senators, all of its other statewide officials and most elected members of the state’s legislature” support the NRA.

    Cobarruvias has a history of controversial statements and over-the-top behavior, including racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-disabled hate speech against his opponents and threatened/encouraged acts of violence against political opponents.

    I don’t think there is ANY excuse for this kind of thing from anyone. There is NO excuse for a politician to say these things publicly or privately. I know that some of it is just blowing off steam. I understand that. But not one of these people has addressed the real issue, noted in Hondo’s article. They are all, including Cobarruvias, engaging in mob behavior, partly because they think they can get away with it.

    The video that is posted on another column, of ‘celebs’ making anti-gun statements is the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen in a very long time. They have all been in movies that involved extreme violence, weapons and property damage. Marg Helgenberg, who played a police detective on a recent TV series, said last week that NRA members should all be shot so they’ll find out what it feels like. Denzel Washington’s latest film “Django Unchained” is one of Quentin Tarantino’s usual hell-bent on destruction movies, involving violence, guns and collateral damage. He’s been in other movies involving those same things: Man On Fire; Book of Eli; Safe House; Unstoppable; Taking of Pelham 1-2-3; American Gangster; Deja Vu – to name a few.

    So what am I, or anyone else who doesn’t/didn’t have a hyper-hysterical reaction to the event in Newtown, CT, supposed to think of peole who say these things, especially when they come from people who are in the public eye? And from a politican?

    I don’t hear anything like this diatribe coming from the right-hand side of the fence.

  2. AW1 Tim says:

    Up here in Maine, the major newspaper is owned by the husband of Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, a true socialist. They have more money than anyone else and are about as left wing as you can get.

    Anyway, their main rag, the Portland Press herald has an opinion piece up saying that it’s time for the state to ban high-capacity magazines. Typical leftist claptrap and all that, though many of the comments so far bring some hope to me, as they take the paper to task for the editorial.

    The article is here:

    Yesterday the ran another similar piece from cherry-picked respondents agreeing that “assault weapons” should be banned, because no one needs them and that they are rare up here in Maine. The folks they interviewed were very suspect in their responses, and they slanted the story to make it appear that only nutcases have AR-15 type weapons, etc.

    I hate these bastards.

  3. Flagwaver says:

    The definition, as set by Congress, is as follows. It must be a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and have two of the following: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

    A folding or telescoping stock make a rifle a carbine. Carbines are “shoot from the hip” weapons and have no use outside of the military. However, having a solid stock on a weapon does not decrease it’s lethality. The carbine stock only makes the weapon less accurate.

    A pistol grip only makes a weapon more comfortable to fire over long periods of time. It has nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon.

    The bayonet mount has absolutely nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon, it only makes it scary looking. Including a bayonet on a rifle makes the weapon so inaccurate as to be unwieldy. Having the mount (with no bayonet) is kind of idiotic anyway as it just adds more weight to the end of the barrel.

    A flash suppressor does not impact the lethality of a weapon, either. As a matter of fact, having no flash suppressor will actually instill more of a panic as the bright flash of the weapon being fired will make it more visible. As well, no flash suppressor also makes a weapon shorter and more easy to conceal.

    Finally, a grenade launcher. Really? A weapon cannot have a grenade launcher? It is illegal to own grenades, so who in their right mind would want a grenade launcher on their weapon.

    So, an assault weapon, is actually defined as a weapon that looks scary. Technically, following those rules, I can own a rifle that is more accurate if not more comfortable. But, hey, as long as the weapon doesn’t look scary, that is all that matters.

  4. Hondo says:

    flagwaver: what you say is true – for now. But not for long, if tools like our own Joe the Rockclimbing Hero has his way.

    First high-capacity magazines (nobody needs those). Then “assault rifles” (nobody needs those). Then semi-automatic rifles (you don’t need more than a bolt-action rifle for hunting). Then semi-automatic pistols (you don’t need those, revolvers work just fine). Then pistols of any type (too easy to use in crime). Then rifles entirely (use a shotgun). Then shotguns (you don’t need to hunt, and the government is the only one who needs weapons).

    The Founding Fathers deeply feared any government with enough power to do stuff like this – because they had lived under one before the American Revolution. That is precisely why they wrote the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights.

  5. FatCircles0311 says:

    Watching liberals talk about firearms is like watching a dog try to do algebra. They have no idea yet they are passionate hysterical children about it. Don’t give them an inch in the debate either. That means magazine size either because once you do 10 will be too much and they’ll demand 5. They’ll want 1 shot use weapons sooner or later because their goal is a defacto ban by making legally owned firearms ineffective.

  6. B Woodman says:

    The mind is the only true weapon.
    Everything else, be it gun, bat, fry pan, ice pick, car, chair, knife – is just a tool.
    And the way the Libtards have hijacked and dumbed down the public education system, it looks as if they’re trying to ban the mind as well as the tools.

  7. streetsweeper says:

    Sometimes, you make me scratch my head, Hondo. Other times, you can be stellar and outstanding. Very well done, trooper. Hooah.

  8. Ex-PH2 says:

    BWoodman – The mind is the only true weapon.

    Bingo! Damn straight! All of you, keep it going.

  9. USMCE8Ret says:

    Refresh my memory, someone.

    Didn’t the shooter in Aurora, CO have significant and repeated contact with his psychologist/counselor – who may have received some indication that he would commit the offense, but any exchanges were considered physician-patient priviledge?

    If that’s the case, then it sound to me like a lot more research needs to go into the relationship between someone who is mentally unstable and access to firearms. I can’t think of any silver bullet that would allow this, as it would be difficult to determine such things in a background check.

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    The relationship between a doctor and a patient is confidendital, yes, but that was negligence.

    A kid in Peoria threatened to kill other students last week because he was tired of being picked on.

    A student elsewhere who made the same threats was incarcerated.

    The shrink in Colorado had a chance to report the shooter to the police and failed to do so. Citing patient-doctor privilege is a lame excuse for negligence.

    But how do you apply that to someone who apparently has never had a ‘bad’ day, never shown any sign of erratic behavior, and who, like Charles Whitman in 1966 at the U of Texas, gets a rifle, loads up with ammo, finds a good spot, and starts picking people off? How about the Beltway snipers a couple of years ago? There was a highway sniper in Indiana a year or two ago. I’m not sure he’s been caught yet, but how do you find someone like that or stop him?

    Hindsight is always crystal clear. It doesn’t stop the next incident and never will. So how do you single out the seemingly normal people who will some day ‘snap’ from the rest of us?

  11. Azygos says:

    Hondo I think you are missing a “P” in Asperger’s .

    • Hondo says:

      Azygos: I inadvertently replaced the “p” with “b”, actually; thanks for bringing that typo to my attention. It’s corrected now.

  12. PintoNag says:

    @10 Doctor-patient confidentiality breech can come with jail time. It’s not an “excuse.” That’s why there IS a problem getting that info to the right quarters: anyone violating that confidence is pretty much out of a job, at the very least. The laws need to change before reliable reporting happens.

    The chances that there are no signs with a seriously disturbed person are slim to none. Someone knows or sees something; the problem is, because of feelings or filial duty or denial or what have you, they choose to say nothing. If we have people who won’t put an old suffering dog down, do you think we have people that will take a risk rather than report mental illness in a family member? Of course we do.

  13. UpNorth says:

    @12, also, some states require a visit to an ER for an involuntary committal after “business hours”. And, finding an ER doc to sign on the dotted line to get an involuntary committal is about as rare as a liberal with common sense.
    I’ve wrestled with and fought with people to get them to an ER, only to have the 4 or 5 doctors in the ER disappear when they find out why the guy/gal has been brought in. When found, most docs will find any way in the world to not sign papers. Because the unwillingness to be committed is proof that they’re not mentally ill. Or, the fact that they fought with mom, dad, and the police is proof of the same.

  14. USMCE8Ret says:

    I think we’d all agree that it’s damn near impossible to predict someone’s actions, whether a threat of violent act has been made or not. The Colorado shooter supposedly made such comments to fellow classmate(s) about killing 4 months prior to the shooting, but no connection was made between that, his psychological issues or the condition is apartment was in (booby-traps, etc).

    This issue will be long debated, for sure. My prediction is that some sort of restriction on some firearms and high-capacity rounds will come about, but it will do little to deter crime.

  15. PintoNag says:

    @13 To compound the problem…most states only have one state mental hospital, if that. I’d have to check the data, but most are under 500 beds. So even if you have a low residency state, you’re still going to have a problem getting an evaluation done in a locked ward — most of them will either be at a regular hospital with a psychiatric ward, or community based. And, if a patient becomes violent and a doctor has to sign a involuntary hold, you automatically have a legal situation on your hands, particularly with an adult.

    There simply is nowhere to put all of the people who need even just a structured environment, much less a secure psychiatric facility.

  16. DefendUSA says:

    This was in my home state and where I spent many weekends with my Aunt. I have several relatives affected by mental illness. My cousin pretended to be FBI, pretended to have a gun and shoot if someone didn’t let her in…she broke windows, but hurt no person. My Aunt wanted to have her committed and the judge told her not to waste her money because the law protected the “perp”! Here in NC, I have a relative living with me who is also ill. As long as she can answer all the questions “right”, no matter what I see, I must go to court before she gets help.

    Hondo, it is my thought that as much as Lanza’s mother loved and wanted help, there was nothing left. She got dumped into a system that must have failed her multiple times. No social worker or school psychologist has the power to work together and certainly, no ER docs, when there is no psychiatric ward or hospital for that matter. It flat out sucks.
    Even though Adam Lanza may have suffered mental illness, I believe he knew right from wrong. People are evil, not inanimate objects.

  17. Charles says:

    @12 it all depends on your local laws. Some states have a “get out of jail free” card if the person in question is making “terroristic threats”. That has been one of the quiet law fare changes in the 20+ yrs since OKC and interestingly enough in all situations the politicos were challenged by the ADA and the lobby group for Psychologists. What defines “terroristic threats” varies but I know here in WA State it is basically wanting to go to school and kill everyone there. PEDs doctors and head shrinkers and even cleregy have a legal and moral and ethical responsibility now to stop terrorism and they can’t be held liable to patient/doctor rules.

  18. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Here in Az., the rights belong to the whacko. Of course we also have no permit required carry concealed! A younger cousin had severe mental problems but just enough working brain cells to convince a judge he didn’t need to be locked up. It worked for years until he got stupid with a knife against some guy who was packing. One well placed round “center mass” and Ruben didn’t have any more mental problems. Sad, but I must be honest, I’m glad it happened. Aunt Olivia & Uncle Rudy didn’t deserve to live the he’ll Ruben was putting the through. They tried everything possible to get him help and, as I said, he always managed to wiggle his way out until that night.

  19. Ex-PH2 says:

    I think it’s the same way in Illinois. It depends on the state, and sometimes, even on the community.

    And for that matter, how do you distinguish between idle threats (e.g., I’m gonna kill that sumbitch the next time I see him), and real threats? How do you tell if someone is serious or just kidding around? If it were just about the use of language, everyone in the country would be in serious trouble.

    The result is that it is easier to deal with an inanimate object than a live person, because the object can’t sue you and the live person can. That’s the real difference.

    ABC ran a story a few years ago on how the state could lock you up for yelling at people to get off your lawn and threatening them with a flowing garden hose. Not a joke. I don’t know if that is still in effect.

    I know people who have left jobs that made them ‘crazy’, not because the job itself was bad, but because the corporate ‘culture’ was an abomination and they sometimes literally felt like taking a gun to work to face down their supervisors — which they did not actually do.

    This is why this is so difficult. There is no simple answer to any of this. The easy way out is to blame the gun first, and the user second, forgetting that even without the gun, the user can still do harm.

    So what do you do?

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    I see I left out the name of that state. It was Florida.

    Sorry about that.