Was the shooter mentally ill?

UPDATE:

4:52 p.m: Neighbors described Adam Lanza to ABC as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with mental illness.
 
A-G_YwQCEAA3R63.jpg


Liberal Hollywood glamorize guns, then whine about the consequences.
 
Last edited:
I'm older, most of you folks don't remember this, but we used to have insane asylums and people were committed, either by their family or doctors when they weren't fit for living in society. In the 70's or so the liberals started closing these places, claiming it was inhuman to lock people away.

These weren't really bad places, just a place for people to live and keep them medicated and in check. We had a distant family member who was in one. These days though they just medicate people and let them live among the rest of us.

Not sure what the shooters issues were, if he had any, but with all these recent events - it makes guys like me think what might be different if people were locked up like they used to be.

My grandmother worked as a nurse at one during the 50's. Said the patients were always treated extremely well, and she always tells interesting stories about what went on.
 
liberal hollywood glamorizes guns and then very often demands gun control a.s.a.p.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!! THIS !!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
we all cannot blame our decline in public mores and private morals on poor charlton heston.
conservatives are often more consistent, and social conservatives can censor sex + violence.
 
Last edited:
I'm older, most of you folks don't remember this, but we used to have insane asylums and people were committed, either by their family or doctors when they weren't fit for living in society. In the 70's or so the liberals started closing these places, claiming it was inhuman to lock people away.

These weren't really bad places, just a place for people to live and keep them medicated and in check. We had a distant family member who was in one. These days though they just medicate people and let them live among the rest of us.

I remember them, and quite a number of nightmare cases where parents had their children committed for being disobedient.
 
Was the shooter mentally ill?

It really goes without saying. A sane person would not do this.

I'm older, most of you folks don't remember this, but we used to have insane asylums and people were committed, either by their family or doctors when they weren't fit for living in society. In the 70's or so the liberals started closing these places, claiming it was inhuman to lock people away.

These weren't really bad places, just a place for people to live and keep them medicated and in check. We had a distant family member who was in one. These days though they just medicate people and let them live among the rest of us.

Not sure what the shooters issues were, if he had any, but with all these recent events - it makes guys like me think what might be different if people were locked up like they used to be.

There is a danger and slippery slope that comes with involuntarily committing people. On the other hand, what we had did work fairly well, and what we have today is a mess, and sometimes dangerous on city streets. It would be reasonable to commit people who prove that they are not fit to be in society, if they are a) diagnosed by professionals, and b) have a history of anti-social criminal acts. Just continuously putting them in jail over and over does not work. But for shooters who have no history of violence or crimes, there is no way to know this before-hand.

Not all schizophrenics are shooters or killers. On the other hand, schizophrenia, which generally manifests itself in the early 20, matches the profile of most of these shooters. And that does not preclude them having other mental disorders before that. The SSRI (prescription drug) side effect seems to change some people's suicide thoughts to murder/suicide thoughts. We may be seeing people who would just kill themselves in the past, going on these outrageous killing sprees now.
 
Whoa! While I agree that medication isn't the answer, I think that it is anti-liberty to just lock people up on a whim. This is especially true now that every aspect of natural human behavior is given a psychological classification. I guarantee that if every one of us were to check ourselves into a psychiatric hospital, that the witch-doctors would find something wrong with us.

Got that right. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
Everyone has their own theory on this. Some will say it is a conspiracy. Some will say more gun control is needed. Some will say it's the prescription meds he was taking. But I will be different and I will go out on a limb and say that if this dude was prescribed some marijuana. He would be at home right now probably hungry as fk while the rest of us discuss issues like the Federal Reserve declaring that they will start buy 85 billion a month in mortgage backed securities (up from 40 a month).

That is my solution to this. Don't take away our guns and give the dude some weed instead of some prescription pills.

I'm not usually big on pro-marijuana rhetoric. But I like this angle here.
 
Everyone has their own theory on this. Some will say it is a conspiracy. Some will say more gun control is needed. Some will say it's the prescription meds he was taking. But I will be different and I will go out on a limb and say that if this dude was prescribed some marijuana. He would be at home right now probably hungry as fk while the rest of us discuss issues like the Federal Reserve declaring that they will start buy 85 billion a month in mortgage backed securities (up from 40 a month).

That is my solution to this. Don't take away our guns and give the dude some weed instead of some prescription pills.
. Weed for President 16
 
Whoa! While I agree that medication isn't the answer, I think that it is anti-liberty to just lock people up on a whim. This is especially true now that every aspect of natural human behavior is given a psychological classification. I guarantee that if every one of us were to check ourselves into a psychiatric hospital, that the witch-doctors would find something wrong with us.

Keep in mind that a lot of these hospitals were founded during the time of the founders. So I wouldn't call them anti-liberty. It wasn't the gov't committing people, it was in large part at the request of their families who cared enough about their well being to ensure they had the proper care that was needed for them. There certainly were some problems with them, but like anything aspect of our society there are good and bad results from every solution.

The fact is, 50 years ago, some of the people that have committed these recent shootings, might very well not be walking the streets in the first place. But the problem is more than just locking people away - we do have a societal problem with the dissolution of the family which is something paleo-cons like myself harp on a lot.
 
I'm older, most of you folks don't remember this, but we used to have insane asylums and people were committed, either by their family or doctors when they weren't fit for living in society. In the 70's or so the liberals started closing these places, claiming it was inhuman to lock people away.

These weren't really bad places, just a place for people to live and keep them medicated and in check. We had a distant family member who was in one. These days though they just medicate people and let them live among the rest of us.

Not sure what the shooters issues were, if he had any, but with all these recent events - it makes guys like me think what might be different if people were locked up like they used to be.
Pretty soon we will all be locked up, tamed, controlled, subdued, compliant.
 
Back
Top