defund the police ap crop
(AP Photo/Matt York)
Previous Post
Next Post

Which brings up the other problem: America’s growing refusal to protect its citizens from violence. In its cities, that’s what the bail-reform/defund-the-police movement is all about — shielding criminals from the consequences of their actions.

But there also is the matter of violently expressed mental illness and its corollary, the clearly disturbed and deteriorating individual who may not yet have hurt someone, but who unmistakably is headed in that direction.

Full details are lacking on the Highland shooter, but he seems to be mad, and there’s no doubt that both the Uvalde and Buffalo killers were too. Dramatically so.

And then there are the muttering subway pushers, random slashers and incoherent sidewalk campers who pose such a threat to big-city dwellers everywhere.

But what, preemptively, can be done about them — the shooters and the street people alike?

Right now, not much. Court rulings from the ’60s and ’70s make it very difficult to intervene, even where the need is obvious, until the rifle fire begins or there’s another dead body on the tracks.

Not to be flip, but think of it as bail-reform/defund-the-police for the deteriorating mentally ill — an imperfect analogy, sure, but not by much.

— Bob McManus in We Are Paying the Violent Price for Refusing to Lock People Up — And Treating Them 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If they put the money into our citizens that they spend on illegals, other countries, and just plain bs things might get better

    • It is not to their advantage, nor is it their game plan to even consider any action under which “things might get better”.

      Their goal is to keep the inner cities, especially, in fear and turmoil.

      For decades they maintained control of the poor and minorities through addicting them to welfare and by that means guaranteed that those people would understand that to keep the milk and honey flowing they would have to keep voting for Democrats.

      Trump screwed that up for the Dems by proving to the minorities of the urban ghettos that they, too, could find productive work and earn an honest paycheck and even improve themselves and work their way up to better jobs and a better life.

      Orange Man BAD!

      SO the pandemic and the “Summer of Rage” took away all those jobs and the security you THOUGHT you had obtained.

      The Dems effort now has turned to the propositions that you cannot depend on helping yourself through your own productive work, that police are bad and will shoot you for no reason if you try, the patriarchy is actively gunning down minorities through police actions, Conservatives are supporting these actions and the only people who can save the minorities are the Dems who understand your dilemma and feel your pain and will send in violence reduction counselors and grief counselors to help you and when it is necessary send in federal agents to get justice against these evil local police forces.

      This is the same playbook using a different carrot on the end of the stick.

      Self sufficiency is not possible. The Conservatives are actively working to hold you down and even kill you. Your only hope is to let the compassionate Liberals provide for you and your children and that will only work if you vote Democrat to help us destroy the evil Conservatives once and for all.

      And BTW, aren’t those Republicans the ones who keep voting in favor of more guns on the street so there are even more people who can shoot your children?

      • Cliff
        Your right it’s not in their game plan to make things better.
        They need to be shown at every opportunity that they don’t own the game.
        Elections have consequences. If the next one is as shady as the last one……

  2. I don’t think I could agree more with this article. The fact is that Leftist anti-gun radicals don’t care if we are able to defend ourselves. Many of their votes come from the criminal element.

  3. Honestly though – ACAB. Red coat tyrant’s can get defunded and citizens will be just fine. It’s just that our civilized colonizer society will punish the people for dealing with crime how they see fit, so which is it? Is the punishment too harsh or not harsh enough? Because even a DGU is a crime until you prove it’s not. So are we free or not? Some of you all have the best intentions, but freedom is violent and chaotic. Not governed. That is the illusion of freedom. Which do you want? All I know is that I’m all for less tyrant presence. If you knew “your rights”, you would be too.

    As for the homeless, are they not literally the most free people in America? We all agree it’s an issue, but why? Because of drug use or where they chose to live? At this point, homeless people sound more American than any wing nut on both sides of the fence. How soon we are to judge those who lead a different lifestyle.

  4. You can bet the farm if anyone of the pictured pathetic protesters encounteded a criminal or were injured they would be the first to call the police, EMT, etc. Such pathetic protesters are all hat and no cattle.

  5. But what, preemptively, can be done about them — the shooters and the street people alike?

    The Constitution clearly states “innocent until proven guilty”. Pre-crime interdiction, whether through red flag laws, restraining orders, etc. are run counter to this.

    Ultimately, it’s Dangerous Freedom vs Peaceful Slavery. Although the latter is anything but Peaceful, at least to the enslaved. Dangerous Freedom requires taking responsibility, not passing the buck or blaming others.

    Simply put:
    “If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

    • “But what, preemptively, can be done about them — the shooters and the street people alike?”

      Well, not much can be done for “them” unless we’re trying to institute something like “The Minority Report” strategy. Helping the average citizen, however, by not only allowing them to be armed for their own protection, but actually advocating the same would go far in creating the logical situation where criminals and crazies were forced to be accountable for their illegal and violent actions. When the status of “intended victim” becomes one of “armed defender” on a regular basis, things would even out at a fairly rapid rate.

    • “But what, preemptively, can be done about them — the shooters and the street people alike?”

      Concealed carry and pass Stand your ground laws and after enough media hysteria and observed examples the criminals and crazies still able to process pattern recognition will understand “fuck around and find out” I envy a lot of states that went constitutional (or whatever your preferred term is) carry and stand your ground.

    • I’ll add to your post 300. If more good people arm up and deal with criminals and crazies they will get the message and choose something else to do. We’ve delegated our police powers too long and it is biting us in the behind now. Look what happened in Uvalde. Wouldn’t a couple of armed men who are parents of children in that school have dealt with that shooting much better than the Keystone Cops who did nothing? If schools would ask for volunteers to keep their schools safe there would probably be too many people volunteering. The only thing that’s stopping this scenario from happening is the government. That’s why the only realistic choice is to remove your children from the public indoctrination centers. They’ll get a better education and the school staff can be armed as well as some of the students.

  6. The true criminal element usually doesn’t vote. They are outside the law and do not care. Many people living near them see to revolving door and the people going in/out and they do vote. These people may not see the whole picture, or just sympathize with the criminals. Many only vote when someone they trust tells them how to vote(like a religious leader or a political worker – like Obama was). People need to do their own homework about political leaders, not be lead by others to vote the system.

  7. L3ftists and Pr0gressives in a word, want to have their cake and eat it too.

    They want order while imposing their s0cial justice. They want other people punished while their people are allowed to do what they please, provided it isn’t done to them.

    In the naivety of their single stage thinking, they do not consider the consequences of their actions. Or they think they’ll do it differently in a kinder, gentler, and blood free way.

  8. “Treating” nutters? How? Electroshock is out of fashion. Drug them? Strong consensus that the fashionable pharma crap is leading to the problem. Shrink with a couch yappin about feelings and childhood snowflake? BS No Pshrink has every “cured anyone”.

    The nutters at the ACLU destroyed the US institutionalization of wackos (lock them up) 50yrs ago. Perhaps the current ACLU infatuation with preserving infanticide creates an opening to return the loonie bins to active service?

      • Some things help some people, most of the vets with PTSD I have known responded best to cognitive behavior therapy with few (if any) drugs. Guess what the VA does not start most vets with? Mental health has all of the problems of the medical industry with the extra complication of different people will respond with wide differences to the same treatment and then there is the fun interactions with the insurance company. My bitching of that field aside while he is a bit overdone with saying no one is helped it is accurate to say many are not helped as they should be.

        • If you ever get a chance, recommend Patrol Base Abbate to veterans.

          The problems you suggested with mental health care are not what neiowa was suggesting. He seems to think he’s got it all figured out and would probably have cripples and mental health patients sent to a concentration camp for a “picnic bbq”.

        • I think I may have read that when I got back from deployment actually and still trying to assume the best of most of our posters but there is a unfortunate chance you are correct.

        • Different group than what I thought I remembered but similar idea, thank you for that mention it will very likely be on our recommended board (for the few vet coworkers I have) this week.

    • Unsustainable budget overruns in 3, 2, 1………… admittedly may be worth considering but the numbers involved are downright daunting where the low security patients end up costing 2-3 times as much as a prisoner and the higher security patients start at 4x and keep going up and we theses are treatment hospitals not full on asylums which have been closed for a while. And this was all before we had a large segment of the potential labor pool lose any interest in working.

  9. Psychos, schizos, pedos and murderers are just more diversity to increase our strength. Talk of stopping them, threating them or locking them up is hatespeech.

  10. In a DEMOCRACY policing is by consent and co-operation and without both there is NO effective policing. It’s not the Police who make the laws it is not the Police who are Judge and Jury. Until the citizens of the USA, or anywhere else, for that matter take a full part and accept PERSONAL responsibility for the application of the law and support the democratic process there is no real Policing possible.
    The responsible gun-owners of the USA must accept the responsibility to do something about the appalling death rates due to the misuse of personal weaponry. A Death rate that now exceeds more tha 20,000 per annum and counting and which has practically doubled in the last decade and a half. It surely shames any civilised Society.

    For instance and I can only speak of the UK though I suppose that the UK is around the European average in these matters. the annual ILLEGAL DEATH RATE, for a population of around 70 million is in the region of 8-900 and that include’s Knife Crime, Gun Crime Domestic incidents [the most common,] MANSLAUGHTER where death was not the intent, and Acts of Terrorism. On a pro. rata. basis this would equate to about 4000 illegal [using the same parameters] deaths per annum for the entire US of A. .

    Surely to god that MUST be a cause for concern and some serius considerations about gun control measures.

    • Lawful travelers and demonstrators are in no way “responsible to do something about” the acts of vehicular-ramming assailants and rioters. Why would lawful gun owners be “responsible to do something about” the acts of armed violent criminals?

      Stick with discussing your nation. You clearly are comically ignorant about ours.

    • The United States of America is a *Constitutional Republic* with a democratic form of government. It is NOT a “Democracy”.

      You fail.

    • I am doing something about it Albert. I’m loading up a couple of my fully semi automatic assault machingunms right now.
      And I’m killun the first S.O.B. that crosses my path.
      Ride Vigilante Ride.

    • Responsible owners don’t commit violent crimes with their guns, are conscientious about safe handling and store them out of reach of the wrong people. That’s the end of their responsibility. It’s the gun grabbers who refuse to put violent criminals in prison or commit the dangerous mentally ill to secure hospitals.

    • The murder rate using guns has not doubled in the last decade and a half, it has doubled in the last half that time – mostly in the last couple years. So-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” have been in civilian circulation for far longer than that – the AR-pattern rifle for nearly 60 years, and semiautomatic firearms for over a century. So as there is clearly no easy to find connection between firearm availability and homicides over the course of that long period to explain recent history, can you think of any social changes which DO coincide with that sudden and recent spike in homicides involving guns? Look to the article for hints.

      But I would suspect you of being one of those Brits who looks at the wild divergence between income and house prices there and without a second of critical thought jumps right to the conclusion that “landlords must have suddenly become incredibly greedy” as your media has taught you to think – not sparing a moment to consider what may have changed in your society right around the same time (late 90’s) when house prices started going ballistic. Another hint: the same policy which in the United States has had the effect of allowing virtually unstoppable illegal access to drugs like fentanyl, because of which that policy has murdered in excess of 90,000 Americans in 2021 – far more than that 20k Americans murdered with a gun, and without the positive flip side of an order of magnitude greater number of legal defensive uses of firearms annually. Solve fentanyl first, then come to us demanding “serious consideration about gun control measures”.

    • Albert,

      The United States is a ‘Constitutional Republic’ that has a democratic form of government. The United States is not a “democracy”.

      The United Kingdom is a ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ in which the reigning monarch does not make any open political decisions. Political decisions are taken by the government AND Parliament and its your government and Parliament that make the decisions.

      Your queen still rules as the Monarch but not as the public facing political power, there is a reason they call it “Her Majesty’s Government” because behind the scenes the queen does rule and does have some political power as your monarch is the very foundation of your government. And of course you have that whole prime minister thing going on, and the prime minister answers to the House of Commons and not really to the people.

      In other words, you live in the modern day version of feudal tyranny with the power of the government in the hands of government and not in the hands of the people.

      Your country a long time ago ceded the power of the people to the government.

      Sure you vote, but you vote for who occupies a political space which governs as the government wants or decides to govern.

      We vote too, and the one we vote for also occupies a political space but that political space is suppose to be governing as the people decide and want to govern and right now it isn’t overall happening. Not because gun owners are upset is that view present, but rather that the government is over reaching by various tactics to usurp power from the people not only for the second amendment but for the 4th, 5th, 14th, and 1st amendments as well. This is much larger than just the second amendment and some guns. The government was never intended to have this power under our Constitution.

      This is why the battle over the 2nd amendment is so important. It could have been any right, and on some fronts it is, but we know, and history and facts show, that once a precedent is set by government over an enumerated right that government then can treat that right always subject to their application of the right which means the power of government then rests in the hands of government and no longer in the hands of the people where it was intended to be by our Constitution. In other words the battle for the Second Amendment is a fight against your UK style tyranny which is forbidden under our Constitution, after all we did kick UK tyranny out of here once before for a reason.

      So pardon us while we take care of business trying to keep the power of government where it belongs in the hands of the people and out of the tyranny over reach hands of government.

      I know this is a concept that is completely foreign to you, I mean, you seem to be so happy living under a modern day form of feudal tyranny. But we prefer not to live under such tyranny.

    • @Albert

      “The responsible gun-owners of the USA must accept the responsibility to do something about the appalling death rates due to the misuse of personal weaponry.”

      Are you responsible because your neighbor has a car accident while driving drunk?

      For every gun that is ‘misused’ there are around ~430,000,000’ish in hands of responsible gun owners that are not misused. That is pretty darn responsible.

      It has become a favorite thing to blame one for the acts of another. For example, white people today are not responsible for the slavery of the civil war period yet its being impressed upon white kids in many public schools that they being white are today somehow responsible for that slavery. Its not just slavery, but all different races are being subjected to the concept that they are responsible for the sins of a previous or far past generation or of others in current times.

      Then we come forward in time a little and back to context and we find even in this context the concept, that we as gun owners are somehow responsible for the sins of another therefore must be punished by our rights being infringed.

      The responsible thing to do is not blame and punish multiple millions of law abiding citizens who do act responsibly because someone else does not act responsibly.

      That’s responsibility, a responsibility of the government to ensure that law abiding citizens are not blamed and subjected to punishment of rights infringement because others were not responsible, its kinda something forbidden the constitution in something called the bill of rights in that second thing in that list where it says ‘shall not be infringed’

      I guess you have a reading difficulty and don’t understand what ‘shall not be infringed’ means.

    • @Albert…

      “A Death rate that now exceeds more tha 20,000 per annum and counting and which has practically doubled in the last decade and a half. It surely shames any civilised Society.”

      No, it has not practically doubled in the last decade and a half.

      “The responsible gun-owners of the USA must accept the responsibility to do something about the appalling death rates due to the misuse of personal weaponry.”

      “20,000 per annum”

      Lets talk about how to count for a minute. Something you apparently don’t know about.

      When you see broad stats like this, they are not all ‘murder’ as in ‘intentional murder’ illegally or ‘accident’ or unintentional shootings. These stats also include self-defense shootings by law abiding citizens, this is known as ‘justifiable homicide’. Now, homicide is a broad category, ‘justifiable homicide’ falls under this category as does ‘murder’ and ‘man slaughter’ and other killings.

      But, the stats including this makes it seem as if there is an out of control intentional ‘gun violence’ epidemic going on because its represented as something it isn’t in the stats, and the blame is placed on law abiding gun owners. Despite the violent tendency mental illness of people who do mass/school shootings being so sensationalized by anti-gun and politicians and the media and the many claims of such who tend to point to such stats as justification for their hysterical rants, and the criminal violence, and despite the media and anti-gun and politicians using these tragic deaths as a sales pitch for their claims – there is no intentional ‘gun violence’ going on by law abiding gun owners.

      There is defensive gun use by law abiding gun owners, about ~7,000 times daily across the United States – in 95% of those the victim law abiding gun owner never fires as shot as in most cases its enough to draw the firearm and brandish, or just show it, and the scares the criminal element away. But here is the strange thing about that, most of those 95% end up in stats for ‘gun violence’ (killings) when they were not because initially in reporting by (many) police forces its prematurely placed in the ‘homicide’ category because of the requirements of their reporting because an ‘investigation’ has to determine if a shot was actually fired or not. This, coupled with ‘justifiable homicide self-defense falsely inflates the stats you see, this is used to tout an intentional out of control ‘gun violence’ issue blamed on law abiding gun owners indirectly (even your own sentiment expresses this) when in reality shots were not fired by the law abiding gun owner or the law says a self defense shooting was justifiable thus legal self-defense.

      It a bad guy were trying to harm or kill you or family, would you not act in self-defense?

      Law abiding gun owners overall realize and know and practice the principal of ‘last resort when all other means have failed or other means are not available’ in terms of firearms for defense. This is born out in the fact that out of ~7,000 DGU daily about 5% times are shots fired and then more then 60% of those shots only wound (and in over 70% of those the wounding was intentional so as not to kill and the rest were wounding simply because under stress of firing in an emergency like this most people hit what they can) the bad guy and not kill and the rest miss. Yet despite this they show up in stats as intentional ‘gun violence’ as killings.

      Out of ~430,000,000’ish firearms in hands of responsible law abiding gun owners, for self defense of ~7,000 times daily they are fired only 5% of those times. The rest of firing is on a range or hunting or other sporting purposes.

      So, for law abiding gun owners overall we are acting responsibly to confine our firearms to only those purposes, are not intentionally causing out of control ‘gun violence’, are not running around shooting randomly. We are acting more responsibly than, for example, people who are texting while driving or drive drunk or the medical profession (about 200,000 cases of medical malpractice annually and about 120,000 are intentional and result in deaths or serious injury), tobacco companies (product causes ~400,000 deaths annually), the U.S. government (~300,000 deaths annually connected to their inaction for medical health practices), car drivers in general (over 2,000,000 injured annually, over 90,000 of them kids under age 12, in car accidents), and even the United Kingdoms lack of stopping the UK from being the violent rape capital of Europe.

      You want responsibility from American law abiding gun owners? You already have it. We can not be held responsible for the lack of responsibility by others, the criminal use of firearms, mass/school shootings, or intentional murder. Statistically, when compared to many other forms of violence and causes of death or injury, in context with firearms – American law abiding gun owners are more than 99% more safer and responsible and law abiding than any other demographic in the United States.

      So you see, you need to learn how to count and learn what the numbers actually mean – and place it in its proper context before you start spouting off about everything you don’t know. Yeah, I know its a little work to look deeper and you probably will not because you are so accustomed to be spoon fed a steady diet of ‘guns are at fault and its irresponsible gun owners’ that you just take the first thing that fits your confirmation bias and run with it. The claimed intentional ‘gun violence’ is not coming from law abiding gun owners and its not actually coming from guns even though guns are used – its coming from fools like you who make these broad claims for some agenda or out of ignorance and from those who are not responsible or act criminally.

  11. Democrats want it that way. They use criminals as muscle.

    “Tough on crime” worked, and all the hippy liberal shit from the 50s-70s didn’t.

    A lot of lefties complain that “we haven’t tried X strategy.” Which is usually a strategy of some form of lighter punishments and “rehabilitation” and reduced sentencing and the like.

    Problem is, America actually already tried ALL of these things, federal and states during that time frame. Back then people often would walk out of prison in less then 10 years after murder charges. Parole is and was bullshit.

    Since tougher sentencing laws of the 80s was enacted crime started to go down because, shocker, criminals started doing serious time.

  12. You can’t reasonably stop a person BEFORE they do something bad. All you can do is give the rest of society the opportunity to defend themselves.

    Unfortunately, the 1st world nations have a particular trend. The individual is increasingly more isolated. Dating and marriage is down, teleworking is booming, the internet makes it far easier to interact in echo chambers, you don’t even need to directly interact with people to order and receive food.

    People with mental illnesses are far less likely to to have strong social networks they can lean on. It makes spotting signs of distress far more difficult for society as a whole.

  13. “But there also is the matter of violently expressed mental illness and its corollary, the clearly disturbed and deteriorating individual who may not yet have hurt someone, but who unmistakably is headed in that direction.”

    Well, that’s said ok… but sadly the majority of times its not “unmistakably”. In fact – most violent tendency mental illness is not expressed or noticed by others until the pressure to satisfy that violent tendency is ready to manifest its self or about to manifest its self in violence.

    Most violent tendency mental illness has not been diagnosed and the mental health medical community knows there is a mental illness of some type but they haven’t defined it so it does not appear in the DSM-5 as a ‘disorder’. So in the very rare times that a person with violent tendency mental illness does present to them they do not treat it or act effectively or at all because the mental health medical community is afraid to deviate from the DSM-5 defined ‘disorders’ because they will not be paid by insurance or the state (in the case of coverage under some state program like medicare) if the ‘disorder’ is not in the DSM-5 or are afraid of civil liability for treating outside the DSM-5.

    Then there is the government liability factor (federal, state, county, local). If these act they must be able to point to the DSM-5 ‘disorders’ to treat or confine or deny (something) because the DSM-5 although not a government created thing is the only official reference used by the mental health professional in government systems and if they do not see the ‘disorder’ listed the person is deemed to not have a mental health issue and is released from mental health, and if they have actually hurt someone then its taken back to the criminal justice system and out of mental health and the criminal justice system assigns penalties for the ‘crime’ if there was one and the person goes without diagnosis and treatment and eventually is released if it wasn’t a capital crime imposing life or the death penalty that keeps them confined.

    Since the vast majority of violent tendency mental illness is not defined as a disorder in the DSM-5, this is a problem even though the mental health medical community recognize some form of mental illness is present.

    Every day in the United States, thousands of violent tendency mental illness people are among society and no one notices because they are really good at hiding it until its ready to manifest its self in violence. This also applies to violent criminals as well.

    Those with violent tendency mental illness are the least likely to seek help/treatment even if they do realize (which is very rare) they do have violent tendency mental illness. To them its a ‘normal’ thing that’s leading them on ‘search’ for their purpose or something that feeds their ‘dissatisfaction’ in some way.

    Then add to this the attitude of the public at large. Although there is a great outcry to do something about mental illness, when a politician speaks of mental illness they are actually talking about disorders defined in the DSM-5 because that’s what is going to be referenced by the mental health medical community and the vast majority of violent tendency mental illness has not been defined as a ‘disorder’ in the DSM-5 because the mental health medical community has not defined it. So we end up with what is basically spending a lot of money and time on programs for bills that include mental health aspects but in the end do nothing really about violent tendency mental illness.

    For the majority of violent tendency mental illness people they are less likely to be helped by those family/friends close to them either because they fear them or they think the issue will correct or has corrected its self because the mental illness has seemed to ‘go away’ because most violent tendency mental illness person tend to hide their activities so its not seen until its too late, and of course there is just plain stupid people who should have gotten the violent tendency mental illness person help but simply do not, and there are the majority of the public at large that simply do not get involved when they see it unless its overly violent in the moment. They are also the less likely to be helped by the mental health medical community before that violence manifests because of the mental health medical community adherence to the DSM-5 and the fact that violent tendency mental illness are the least likely to seek help/treatment and the fact that overall violent tendency mental illness people are really good at hiding it until its too late to notice it. Then there is the fact that the majority of violent tendency mental illness people tend to function in society ‘marginally’ enough to be thought of as them just being them so they go largely un-noticed. Then there is the fact that when a violent tendency mental illness person is identified, their evaluation is based upon the DSM-5 criteria for a ‘disorder’ defined in the DSM-5 when is the very thing that has not defined the vast majority of violent tendency mental illness so we end up with a person being reported for some type of episode or incident that may be ‘violent’ to some extent but not the ‘big one’ that will happen later and they are released because their evaluation was based upon the DSM-5 which did not include their violent tendency mental illness as a disorder then later the ‘big one’ happens and the public is suddenly screaming for the same mental health attention programs that did not help before.

    This is also among the many hidden fallacies in Red-Flag laws. When actual violent tendency mental illness people get evaluated they are evaluated according to the DSM-5 thus are less likely to NOT be determined to have a mental health issue that makes them a danger and they are released because their violent tendency mental illness is not defined in the DSM-5 as a ‘mental health’ illness disorder.

    This not to say that some violent tendency mental illness people are not identified and stopped and and diagnosed but compared to the estimated millions wandering around in society who have a violent tendency mental illness the ones who are identified and stopped and diagnosed are relatively very few. And most times with medication these very few are allowed to stay present in society, over 60% of them stop taking their medication at some point and go back to hiding their violent tendency mental illness until its too late and end up hurting or killing others or themselves.

    Although in terms of mass/school shootings because that’s what these doctors mention following this were working on, this concept of the violent tendency mental illness person having not been discovered and diagnosed before they act on their impulse is also covered as its the same problem – Forensic psychiatrists James L. Knoll IV, MD, and George D. Annas, MD, MPH, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse New York, both leading authorities on the mental health aspects of mass/school shooters, summed it up for the mental health community various studies on various aspects in terms of mass/school shooters…. Although mass shooters may not meet DSM-5 criteria for a recognized disorder, “they do have an ill-defined trouble of the mind for which the mental health field has no immediate, quick-acting ‘treatment,’” – in other words, mass/school shooters do have mental illness but not something clearly defined and for which the mental health community has no immediate quick-acting treatment, such treatment includes diagnosis so its a mental illness that has not yet been diagnosed.

    • to add:

      This does not mean that all people with mental illness are violent.

      This does not mean that all people with violent tendency mental illness will become a danger to others. Although there are a lot of violent tendency mental illness people, many do not express it in a manner which is of danger to others or themselves and some express it in a manner which is harmful to only them.

      Violent tendency mental illness comes in different varieties and different levels, from forms of self-deprecation (for the mental and emotional abuse of ones self) to outright physical violence against others (e.g. domestic abuse, murder, assault, etc…). Some people with violent tendency mental illness have a strong sense of right and wrong they use to keep the violent tendency mental illness pressure towards violence in check and suppressed, and some use a non harmful ‘expression’ method to vent it when the pressure gets to be too much. There are a lot of different coping mechanisms employed to hide the violent tendency mental illness. A lot of the expressions of violent tendency mental illness sometimes may mimic things people without any mental illness exhibit due to a certain situation like, for example, sudden anger. Some people with violent tendency mental illness ‘grow’ out of it as time goes on and they age and they being to see its not worth it. And some people with violent tendency mental illness may only have it because a ‘situation’ or ‘something’ usually created and nurtured by them is allowed to continue to exist because they are too deeply emotionally invested in the ‘situation’ or ‘something’, for example, racial hatred violence.

      Overall violent tendency mental illness is extremely difficult to diagnose as something that can be treated by the mental health medical community. Violent tendency mental illness is not always accompanied by other previously defined mental illness nor is it always apparent and its not always obvious to others until the violence happens.

      All mass/school shooters and murders and criminally violent have some level of violent tendency mental illness that drives them, pressures them, triggers them to commit their heinous acts.

      Even if no guns at all existed in the world, these people would still find a way to vent that violence upon others because their violent tendency mental illness drives them to do so.

      For example: In the 2013 Boston marathon bombing an explosive was used for the mass killing/injury – about 1,300 violent knife attacks happen in the U.S. daily – most of the prolific serial killers of the 20th and now the 21st century used means other than firearms – the majority of murders are committed using ‘ordinary things’ other than firearms, ranging from prescription drugs and poisons to knives to hands and feet to blunt objects to ligature – every year teachers and students are violently attacked on school grounds by others who have violent tendency mental illness, an average 30,000 such attacks without firearms annually all carried out mostly using hand/feet, knives, and blunt object.

      These do not commit their acts of violence because a means exists to do so, they commit their acts of violence because they are driven to do it by their violent tendency mental illness and will use what they can or favor to satisfy that drive.

      • correction:

        “…and they being to see its not worth it.”

        should have been

        “… and they begin to see its not worth it.”

  14. here
    i fixed the headline:
    “Democrat Mayors and District Attornies Refuse to Protect Their Citizens from Violent Crime”

  15. From all i have read, it seems that the use of Cannabis causes psychosis . The last few shooters we have had are supposed to be heavy cannabis users. Also some of the drugs prescribed for mental disorders actually make their conditions worse. This may explain some of the problems we are having , then add in a complete lack of morals and boom.

    • *Increases likelihood of the development of psychosis and earlier onset of schizophrenia for those with a genetic predisposition. No idea what the causal factors are but we have seen a trend for both especially in the Office of Mental Health Facilities re juvenile/young adult under 21 with schizophrenia. Not safer than alcohol for everyone.

  16. America’s violent crime problem is largely due to really sh*t democrat policies in a handful if deep blue states. These states have crime problems so bad that they’re skewing the national violent crime statics for the entire nation. They’re too damn focused on trying to socially engineer society instead of just looking at the problems directly.

    America’s problem isn’t an access to guns problem, it isn’t a cannabis problem, or even a general mental illness problem. It’s a DEMOCRAT problem. And no, the GOP isn’t that great either. But democrats are like stage 3 cancer while the GOP is just like a really bad case of antibiotic resistant chlamydia. We can still treat one of these. The other has to be burned out.

  17. “America Refuses to Protect its Citizens from Violent Crime”

    This makes no sense. The American citizen has more responsibility to protect themselves than anyone else has. There are more guns owned by more people than ever before. It sounds to me like a growing portion of America IS protecting its citizens.

    It’s the liberal enclaves that represent the highest levels of danger against citizens.

    • “It’s the liberal enclaves that represent the highest levels of danger against citizens.”

      I can hear Jean Rousseau laughing from the grave now… “Muhahahahah”.

      (note: for those that do not know, Jean Rousseau is the godfather and patron saint of liberalism.)

  18. Every country has disturbed individuals, but no nation comes close to the United States in mass shootings. A recent study revealed that 73 percent of these incidents over the past 20 years occurred in the United States. During the first half of 2022, there have been 309 mass shootings.

    Dramatic though they are, these tragedies account for a fraction of gun deaths. According to the “Gun Violence Archive,” of the more than 22,000 gun deaths since 2013, the majority (more than 12,000) were suicides. The next largest group (more than 10,000) were homicides and accidental shootings. The United States has the highest per capita murder-by-firearm rate among the world’s wealthiest nations (4.12 per 100,000). From 2009-2021, 1,363 Americans died in mass shootings.

    These grim statistics paint a clear picture of what needs to be done. No amount of mental health care, law enforcement or school hardening will stop the killing. Keeping guns out of the hands of perpetrators will. Assault rifles belong on battlefields, not on American streets. No one needs a semiautomatic weapon or a high-capacity magazine. Only police and security guards should be allowed to carry firearms openly or concealed. If you are too young to drink legally, you are too young to buy a gun of any kind. The federal government must require universal background checks for all gun purchases.

    Anyone asserting their Second Amendment right to bear arms should be required to join a “well-regulated militia” (i.e., the National Guard), as the Second Amendment requires. They must also realize that a constitution written in the age of the smoothbore musket cannot be applied without modification to the era of the AR-15.

    Gun-control advocates have aptly described the new federal law as a first step in the right direction. That may be true, but the law does not go far enough. The right of children to watch parades and go to school in safety must take precedent over the right of adults to buy any weapon they choose. That safety requires more stringent gun-control laws.

    • “No amount of mental health care, law enforcement or school hardening will stop the killing. Keeping guns out of the hands of perpetrators will.”

      How are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? No answer.

      “Assault rifles belong on battlefields, not on American streets. No one needs a semiautomatic weapon or a high-capacity magazine.”

      Unconstitutional restrictions; a non-starter.

      “Only police and security guards should be allowed to carry firearms openly or concealed. If you are too young to drink legally, you are too young to buy a gun of any kind. The federal government must require universal background checks for all gun purchases.”

      None of these “solutions” will stop criminals from using guns in crimes. There’s no Constitutional way to outlaw open and concealed carry for lawful citizens. Universal background checks won’t stop criminals who refuse to submit to them.

      “Anyone asserting their Second Amendment right to bear arms should be required to join a “well-regulated militia” (i.e., the National Guard), as the Second Amendment requires.”

      It does not. The only “militia” mentioned is the whole people; “well-regulated” meant “equipped and in good working order.” It did not mean “restriction by government” — just the opposite. It is a limit on government, not citizens.

      The rest of your crap deserves no discussion.

    • dacian,

      do you have a checklist for these regurgitations you spew about. I mean, is there some sort of secret checklist you use to remain in lock step. How much per post do you get paid? Do you lose money if a post if off script? At the end of the day, do you push away from the key board then fill in your time card and call it a day? How often are these checklists and scripts changed?

    • If you want to create such a change to the interpretation of the Second Amendment (presumably skipping the difficult constitutional process you’re unlikely to succeed at), you owe the people a more thoughtful explanation of how your solution is the only way than just waving the bloody shirts of the children on whose graves you’re making your emotional appeal.

      You can start with explaining how after over a century of semi-auto firearms being legal for civilians to own, only now are the crimes you’re worked up about enough of a problem to require such a drastic denial of natural rights – particularly with a logical explanation for why such crimes weren’t so common in that century.

      Not that I expect such a response – emotion is all you’ve got. And it just wouldn’t do to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe your progressive push over that same century to toss aside all traditional norms as being “oppressive” to someone or another – the dissolution of the family, encouraging women into male roles & disparaging motherhood, emasculating men & disparaging fathers, coddling the mentally ill no matter how deranged, encouraging “do what feels good” narcissisism and nihilism over traditional morals, valuing racial “equity” over color-blind equality of opportunity & rights, leaving borders open to import drugs and crime without constraint, and much more – has led to a more unwell and violent society. Guns and their lethality have been a constant in that time, something that cannot be said about mass shootings and progressive infection of society and its institutions.

      Before you demand any further restriction on our rights as they are (as SCOTUS has established, that is very different from what you wish those rights to be), try a little introspection yourself as to what role YOU and your beliefs have played in the increase in mass shooting incidents.

    • “Every country has disturbed individuals, but no nation comes close to the United States”

      Any more of people like you we would all agree with your assessment.

      We have you, your antifa cosplay friends, and your other personalities pretending to be a majority. You are the epitome of disturbed.

  19. I might add that early childhood trauma often creates tomorrow’s mass murderers. Unwanted children due to the inopportunity of the mother to abort often results in a child who grows up and develops a sense of hopelessness, despair, isolation, self-loathing, and oftentimes rejection from peers.” The young person grows up to be a volcano ready to explode in violence.

    Yes the Neanderthal Conservative is always his own worst enemy. He refuses to fund money for working mothers, refuses common sense gun laws that result in more mass murders and therefore more calls for gun bans, he refuses to fund paid for higher education which results in a sea of young people who have no job qualifications, he refuses to fund a National Health Care program that results in people going bankrupt over health care.

    The Conservative is a stingy, self-serving, racist, xenophobe, and an immigrant and minority hater. The Conservative often is a hypocritical religious fanatic that wants his particular brand of Bronze Age Mysticism made a requirement for a newly instituted religious caliphate.

    • :yawn: SSRI exposure in juveniles through mother during pregnancy + later prescription in childhood. Your projector is broken.

    • From the guy who says to kill the unborn because they might turn criminal.

      Judge, jury and executioner. Mostly people of color children? Or are you an equal opportunity murderer?

    • dacian…

      can you show us on the doll where the man touched you…

      seriously, what traumatized you so much as a child that you have such confirmation bias today?

  20. First thing is governmental forces, whether police, the various mental health hospitals, or the various bureaucracies cannot protect anyone from harm. They can only respond after the fact. Police can patrol in hopes of stopping something when it happens, or by their presence, perhaps dissuade someone from acting. We can improve the mental health system to some extent so those who do have issues can get help. Problem being that help will seem like a punishment for many if it restricts their movement or their rights to certain items. Which will prevent many who need help from getting it.
    As for the foolish idea of somehow restricting access to weapons, time and again it is proven prohibition does not work as desired and usually has major consequences not considered by the prohibitionists. See alcohol and drugs.
    Much is made of the firearms restrictions of much of Europe, or Japan etc. While ignoring cultural differences, and the fact that the same crimes occur using different weapons of methods.


    • Is there some sort of medical condition that forces people to use all caps in everything they post?

      It was Texas, then there is another guy, now its the Brad character

      • .40 cal,


        But it’s annoying AF, isn’t it???

      • The ones who use proper grammer or a least make intelligent sounding pists use caps because of their eyesight. Others, they too stoopid to use a keyboard properly.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here