Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill


Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)

In a bizarre version of “A Christmas Carol,” CNN’s Carol Costello fantasized about “a mother who lost her child,” showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul’s door, saying, “Please don’t do this!”

The victims of gun violence are the left’s latest “human shields” — a term coined by me in Godless: The Church of Liberalism – for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.

The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.

If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they’d make it. Manifestly, they don’t, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.

This allows liberals to act as if Republicans’ only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don’t mind dead children.

The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.

All the actual evidence — mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested — shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: concealed-carry laws.

Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can’t be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.

For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the ’70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.

Mass shootings don’t correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza’s mother — nearly the only person who had contact with him — that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.)

We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a “gun-free” area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey’s book, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens.

But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.

As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: “I want to be careful here — that we don’t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.”

Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of “stigmatizing” the mentally ill?

Contrary to Franken’s claim, some of the mentally ill are far more likely to be violent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenics and similarly disturbed individuals are three times more likely to commit a violent crime than others.

The mentally ill are also more likely to be the victims of violence. Ask the sisters of the crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs out on the street.

Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats’ gun proposals — legal gun owners — are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed.

After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy — apart from concealed-carry laws — that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill.

That’s why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats’ “gun safety” proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun.

The Democrats’ argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats’ “gun safety” bill passes, there’ll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chezwick

    I would urge a little caution on this issue. Many conservatives are rightly appalled that the government wants to usurp our 2nd Amendment rights….and yet, they suddenly seem perfectly willing to cede to the government the power to seize and detain any citizen suspected of being mentally ill. It's a very dangerous precedent….and absolutely reminiscent of Soviet Russia.

    • Rostislav

      Yes, reminiscent – but not absolutely. The usual Soviet practice was to label all our criminals as "socially friendly element" and all the enemies of Stalin's Constitution as dangerous nuts. Your liberals seem to label as their "social-friendly element" the black criminals only, and under the dangerous nuts they mean only those who defend the US Constitution. I think, our grey henchmen would welcome such finesse in further development of their basic ideas. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

    • tagalog

      Well, except that until the Donaldson case in 1975, it was perfectly within the bounds of constitutionality to place a mentally ill person involuntarily in a mental hospital for short-term observation upon the signature of two physicians.

      So, except for the arbitrary date of the Donaldson decision, it's a bit hard to say just when involuntary commitment of the mentally ill (dangerous or not) suddenly became unconstitutional. It was OK from 1789 to 1975, then all of a sudden not OK.

      • Chezwick

        I didn't mention the word 'unconstitutional'….but since you've gone there, blacks and women were once denied the vote….and it was all perfectly legal for the time.

        I happen to feel that under ANY circumstances, locking someone up who has neither committed a crime nor voiced the intention to do so….is a very, very profound threat to human freedom.

        • tagalog

          And yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the present proposed laws infringing on our rights under the Second Amendment. Am I right about that?

          Your post raised the constitutionality issue when you criticized gun advocates for being constitutionally inconsistent. So no, you didn't use the word "unconstitutional," but you raised the constitutional issue.

          Discrimination between the mentally ill and the rest of the people is grounded in the fact that mentally ill people are, by definition, dysfunctional, and commonly don't know when they need help. Provision of help, even when unwelcome, is discrimination that is grounded in appropriate distinctions. Discrimination based on sex or color is invidious discrimination, not grounded in an appropriate distinction.

          Blacks and women were never seen as requiring help even when that assistance is against their will. Seriously mentally ill people often run out of resources (in many cases their families abandon them) and need help; the fact that they can't see that is not due to their not needing help, it's due to their being delusional. So the allusion to blacks and women doesn't apply.

          • Chezwick

            "And yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the present proposed laws infringing on our rights under the Second Amendment. Am I right about that?"

            Where on Earth did you get that? What I wrote was….

            "Many conservatives are RIGHTLY appalled that the government wants to usurp our 2nd Amendment rights…."

            Meanwhile, notice how you qualified the issue by saying "…SERIOUSLY mentally ill people…"

            In the absence of any crime, who is to determine who is SERIOUSLY mentally ill and who is only marginally so? Government? At what point in the future will eccentricities and individualism – particularly those shaded with an anti-government hue – become "mental illness".

            Think hard, friend. It's a slippery slope.

          • tagalog

            The psychiatric professionals, who have been defining and deciding who is mentally ill, seriously or less seriously, will decide, as they have been deciding for many decades.

            They also decide currently, and have been for many, many years, who is dangerous to self or others in deciding on who should be involuntarily committed, and doing a reasonably good job of it. It hasn't been a slippery slope so far, and since Donaldson brought the gimlet eye of constitutional law to bear on the issue, they've done quite well. Unforturnately the professionals have been so willing to err on the side of caution that we have derelicts wandering around our downtowns instead of getting much-needed care.

            Yeah, I said that seriously mentally ill people run out of resources. Neurotic mentally ill people generally have enough on the ball that they can compensate in the within-normal-limits world. Psychotics use up the patience of everyone.

            I also said mentally ill people are dysfunctional; evidently you were too busy finding things to cavil at that you missed that.

          • Chezwick

            And what agency is to decide whom the "psychiatric professionals" should investigate…. in the absence of any criminal or threatening behavior? Obviously the state. Apparently, you wish to empower the state with such prerogatives. Not me.

            Adam Lanza's mother knew the extent of his illness….and she bears primary responsibility for not facilitating his institutionalization. He was obviously "seriously ill", but unlike your contention, he never ran out of resources because he had her to enable him.

            In the absence of her cooperation, how could outside agencies have possibly prevented Lanza from his eventual rampage, given that he exhibited no violent or criminal behavior until the very day he perpetrated his evil? Should the government have initiated a psychiatric investigation of him because he didn't work?…..because he didn't venture outside very often?…because he didn't have friends?…..because he liked video games?

            I'm all for committing people who have exhibited behavior that indicates they are a danger to themselves or others, but Lanza didn't fall into that category….at least from the outside looking in. No mental health regimen, short of an Orwellian monstrosity running roughshod over our rights, could ever have prevented his rampage, any more than tightened gun laws could have.

          • tagalog

            Yeah, well, we didn't have any Orwellian monstrosities running wildly roughshod over our rights when it was a common event for disturbed people who didn't pose a present danger to self or others to be committed to mental hospitals involuntarily prior to 1975. Deinstitutionalization was almost universally seen as a disservice to the mentally ill, not as a blow for personal freedom. And so it turned out to be.

            No one has made much complaint about the psychiatric profession's having authority over making dailiy determinations about the mentally ill being dangerous to self or others, as they do right now, and have done since long before the Donadlson case in 1975. They seem to be doing an acceptable job right now.

    • Gina

      As a libertarian, and someone against any more gun control, I absolutely agree with Chezwick on this. "Conservatives" should be careful trying to suggest that government controlling the mentally ill will lower gun violence. We should not give government power to decide who is and is not sane. I think it's wrong even in criminal law cases.

    • Ken

      Read all about John Noveske's last post on facebook before he was killed. This will scare you but will shed light on the real issues. We keep every hyper kid doped up instead of just disciplining them or putting up with their antics.

  • Mary Sue

    wait wait wait wait wait.

    An area of a FREAKING ARMY BASE was a GUN FREE AREA?

    WHOSE CRACK BRAINED IDEA WAS THAT?!

    • tagalog

      In the mil, you carry a firearm only when told you can do so. Otherwise, you are gun-free. And God help you if you are found to be carrying ammo around with no military justification for it.

      Unless you're Hassan Nidal, or whatever his name is.

    • pagegl

      Idiots in the Pentagon who wanted to suck up to the anti-gun members of Congress.

      For more insanity, check out the rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan; I'm surprised they're allowed to fire back when they take enemy fire.

  • Gid

    I agree with Ann, but I should say that some people do get misdiagnosed as mentally ill. I was locked up in a mental hospital for believing there was a "compromising movie" being shown of me on a college campus, and the only way I got out was by eventually phoning a relative, who happened to be a psychiatrist, who said "you don't belong there, I'll get you out." It is important to realize that psychiatry is not like medicine. In medicine, a doctor can point to your x-ray and say "your arm is broken"., In psychiatry, the psychiatrist evaluates you sometimes just by whether he believes your beliefs are true. I'm not the only one, one woman nearly starved to death over several years because psychiatrists thought she had anorexia when she had colon problems, another man died of a heart attack hours after psychiatrists told him his symptoms were "depression", another woman who had myasthenia gravis was diagnosed as just depressed or a hypochondriac for years, etc. A whole Jewish town in Hungary was murdered by Nazis because they did not heed the warning of someone who had actually seen Nazis in action, — they diagnosed him as insane. You get the idea.

  • Catherine

    Worse than the above sad stories by Gid is the stigmatization of people taking anti-Anxiety medications and other common medicines. In my area there was just gun confiscation performed on those with such prescriptions in their medicine cabinets. Most households have such medicines for insomnia, stiff muscles, upset stomach not to mention common mental health issues. If the medicines fall within the psychotropic category that is now a reason to confiscate fire arms,
    So, just as in Soviet Russia, as Chezwick says above, most households are ripe for gun confiscation.
    Yes, the seriously/chronically mentally ill do need an environment that keeps them and others safe. And yes, this is now lacking. But pretending to conflate a person feeling "down" and taking an SSRI with chronic psychosis is just an excuse for more centralized government control.
    Why does the government want our guns? So that they can…..

    • tagalog

      The solution to a phony method of classifying people for gun ownership by the type of medication they take is to classify the disturbed by their potential for danger.

      Ms.Coulter points out effectively that the mass murder rate has risen as the violent mentally ill evade being hospitalized and treated involuntarily. Even on this website, when involuntary commitment for a 48-72 hour period for a psych eval of dangerous tendencies is brought up, an equivalence is drawn to Soviet oppression of dissidents. The mentally ill are not dissidents; they are dysfunctional people who, at times, may be dangerous to selves or others. The time to treat them is BEFORE they begin acting out.

      And involuntary hospitalization is hardly the worst thing they face; life on the street is pretty bad for them, as anyone who has experience with the homeless can tell you.

      Some claim that mental health professionals are not competent to make a determination of danger potential. If not them, who? Are we just going to wait until another Sandy Hook incident, or an Aurora movie theater massacre? Come on. Adam Lanza's mom knew he was dangerous – she was contemplating putting him in a mental hospital herself. Coulter points out other examples where the veering of a sick person off track was seen before the damage was done. Those people could have been stopped by involuntary commitment. The latest Lone Star College stabber guy was pretty odd, if the news reports are correct, and people observed him.

      Once a disturbed person has been classified as violent or not violent, the law can justifiably prohibit the dangerous mentally ill from purchasing/possessing firearms.

      • gid

        You say that: "Some claim that mental health professionals are not competent to make a determination of danger potential. If not them, who?" – I basically agree that they are the people who should make the decision, but I can also tell you that psychiatry is an art, not a science. Even the drugs that psychiatrists use don't work by methods we understand. We know that some drugs raise neurotransmitter levels in the short term, or affect genes in the long term, but they are still mysteries. If you want to convince a psychiatrist that you are a lunatic, its very easy to do. No matter how many years of school he has had, no matter how much clinical experience he has had, it doesn't help him. (That experiment has been done by researchers, and the results were depressing). Conversely, trying to persuade the psychiatrist you are NOT a lunatic has also been tried, and again, it generally did not work, though the nurses in the wards did have some more intelligence in that experiment than the "mental health professionals."

        • tagalog

          And what is your conclusion? Maintain the same level of danger that currently exists, but keep the huge majority of sane and law-abiding from exercising their right to keep and bear arms?

          Is that what you're saying?

          Or shall we just leave both the current state of the law about the mentally ill and firearms alone, and let things work themselves out? I'm for that, by the way. The nut cases and the criminals will just steal the guns, make street purchases, or find straw buyers whatever the law says, anyway.

          Addressing your main point: mental health professionals make a determination of potential for danger among the mentally ill every day, every time they are called upon to sign off on an involuntary commitment under the Donaldson case, so it's not like they don't have the recognized capability to make a professional (off-the-cuff, eyeball) evaluation of such a thing in the admitting office.

          And your personal experience shows that it's entirely possible for a person who's wrongfully incarcerated in a mental hospital to get out. Also, every involuntarily committed person has the right to go to court to contest his/her loss of freedom. Due process of law and habeas corpus principles require that. The problem with court review is that it takes time to get to court.

          • Modern Patriot

            There shouldn't be any restrictions on the 2nd amendment period, and certainly not any extension of background checks or other means to build a database of gun owners. Nor should there be any efforts made to increase the governments (local, state, or federal) ability to involuntarily commit anyone based on the "mental health professionals" opinion. Knowing the record of the government as it stand, you really want to give them the ability to commit people for evaluation? What keeps them from locking up someone who supports the 2nd amendment for evaluation for "schizophrenia" simply to harass? Or maybe it's not simply harassment, maybe being taken in for the evaluation, even if released 10 hours later, puts your name into the NICS database as a "no go" due to that mental health evaluation. That is what will be happening soon with obamacare forcing the medical records of people to be organized into a database to "make it convenient for a patient and their doctors". Year right, I can see the day in the near future when anyone prescribed a certain medicine, or fits a certain profile the doctors are told to look for (supports constitution, critical of government policy, etc.) will be barred from buying a gun, and they won't know until they try to make the purchase. What happens next is anyone's guess.
            The real debate that needs to be going on is that of the medical community itself. First of all, a huge number of doctors and psychiatrists are arrogant close minded people who follow right along with what they are told to think in med school. They are quick to dispense medication after medication as solution to problems when they are in fact band-aids for symptoms at best. There is not only a lack of concern for nutrition, exercise and dietary supplementation these things are actively ridiculed by many "professionals" in health care. I have nacrolepsy and I know first had how the doctors want to load you up with antidepressants, stimulants, benzodiazapenes, etc etc ad nauseam. It took me a few years to realize that I could get the same benefits from diet, exercise, and supplementation (amino acids and b vitamins in my case) without being dependent on a pharmaceutical medication.
            The real problem, at the very foundation, is the decline of our society in this country and it's loss of moral character. No one wants to admit this but it's true. I'm afraid it's going to take a painful blow to this society before people realize these things. Just seems to be the inherent stupidity of human nature, demonstrated time after time in the annals of history. We are looking at the possibility of civil war, WW3, or financial collapse, each being a real possibility if things don't seriously change. The real scary part is we might get all three at once. (This post was not proof read, don't have time to do it, so please forgive any errors in grammar/spelling)

          • tagalog

            I wouldn't be very surprised if none of the three possible outcomes you predict never came about; I think it's far more likely that the majority of Americans are addicted to feeding at the public trough, and when the crash comes, most Americans will be left helpless and floundering, wondering what happened. The financial crash seems most likely, but the entire world will crash if we do, so it will be largely a matter of the end of the welfare state and a return to the dog-eat-dog world that has existed for most of human history, with the entire world population living mostly in poverty and a few at the top leading the rest of us.

            Given that, I doubt that anyone is going to get very exercised about violating the rights of the mentally ill or gun owners.

      • Drakken

        Tag, you should see what they are trying to do with veterans, the head shrinks think that they all are a danger to everyone else and that PTSD is the new normal and that non should be able to own or possess any type of weapon. I can understand the reason to lock up the dangerous, but these shrinks are making decisions based on feelings, not medicine and that to me is a very scary thing.

  • tagalog

    Al Franken said, “…I want to be careful that we don’t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.”

    How about the vast majority of gun owners? They're being stigmatized every day as "black helicopter" people, as nuts, as violent, as -in effect- no better than pornographers or child molesters, as "clingers" to passe things such as Christianity and guns.

  • antisharia

    Democrats are Marxist filth. All they care about is imposing their totatlitarian nightmare on the last free nation on earth.

    • kasandra

      Right you are. The fact is that they absolutely know that nothing in the bills in Congress or the States, if enacted, is going to prevent another mass shooting. When that happens, the same people will say that we didn't do enough and new bills will have more restrictive measures it them. It is simply a manifestation of the "boiling the frog" syndrome. They'll take little steps, bit by bit in true Alynskyite fashion, untill pretty soon we find that they've achieve their goal of having a disarmed populace. I cannot see how anyone could doubt this. Biden himself has admitted that "this is only the start" or similar. So while we debate this or that micro provision of this or that piece of legislation, they're looking ahead at the macro, planning for it and moving toward it.

  • PAthena

    The so-called "homeless" people are mainly mentally-ill people who can no longer be in mental institutions. The mental institutions were closed in order to save money, with the justification that they could be held cheaper in jail. Rikers, the jail of New York City, has the largest number of mentally-ill people in the country.

    • BS77

      Michael Savage said, "Liberalism is a mental disorder"…..Liberals cannot think rationally, and usually resort to hysteria rather than logic. Thanks to Ann Coulter.

    • tagalog

      Not all homeless people are mentally ill, although the majority of them are, about 60%. Drug/alcohol addicts make up most of the rest.

      • Mary Sue

        yeah, the problem is, it's hard to tell how much overlap there is between addicts and the mentally ill, since the alcohol/drug people are usually self-medicating with alcohol and illicit drugs. If it's not to drown the pain of abuse, it's in lieu of psychiatric medications.

        • Anonymous

          There is that overlap — that is, drug use can lead to certain forms of psychosis — so, as you note, there are not two separate categories (impoverished drug user vs mentally ill)…the two categories can intersect.

          • Mary Sue

            many times I've heard the old story of the homeless schizo who would rather drink or take some sort of street drug than actual schizophrenia meds.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Surely there ought to be ways to give a person accused of being schitzophrenic or whatever, an opportunity to hire a lawyer specializing in mental illness-related legal issues. But If you have someone like the Virginia Tech shooter who was known to be an extremely disturbed guy for two years (at least) before April 2007, the least we can do is forbid gun ownership by such an individual. Or, confine such a person to an institution for his (her) own good and the good of society.

  • tagalog

    Some right-wing talk radio personality has just published a recording of some politico asking why al-Qaeda people don't take advantage of U.S. gun laws to purchase FULL-AUTO firearms at some gun show, no questions asked and no background check.

    Hint: no American has been able to buy lawfully any FULL-AUTO firearm without LOTS of questions being asked, background checks being run, and a special federal license being required with a $200 tax on the purchase, since 1934. The Federal Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits it.

    Q. What do you call an Arab who has run out of ammo?

    A. A moderate.

    Like the invincibly ignorant female politico of a few days ago who claimed that high-capacity magazines that are grandfathered in under new gun control laws will eventually disappear because they are discharged when you fire your firearm, this newest ignorant statement says that people in America can buy FULL-AUTO firearms over the counter, no questions asked. Why are people who KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT GUNS AND GUN LAWS making our gun laws? Maybe that's a good thing for us gun owners – they could do more damage if they knew what they are talking about.

    • Mary Sue

      are you sure they were 'right wing'? They sure sound low-information.

    • Mary Sue

      oh wait you mean the politico not the radio host… XD

      • tagalog

        I have a bad habit of writing convoluted sentences. Sorry. : )

  • Luna

    The fact is mentally ill people belong in a facility. Ann is right about the incidence of violence committed by the mentally ill going up since tne closing of state mental facilities. I was doing some field work in the 70s for a university program in CA and visited several state institutions then a few years later was shocked by the decision to close such facilities. Where were these people to go, who was to care for them, how we're they to receive services spread out all over the state? A huge percentage of them are now the much vaunted "homeless" because their families can't manage their care and Al Franken wouldn't take them in even though he's so concerned about them. That said, look at the Drs for hire at these high profile trials. Would anyone want one of them guessing whether you're insane or not? They look loonier than their clients. It looks like a well armed populace is our only viable solution.

    • tagalog

      The answer in the 1970s (when I worked in a hospital setting with the mentally ill) to the question of what would happen to the mentally ill when they were no longer subject to involuntary commitment and treatment was that the ACLU said that communities would establish "halfway houses" and treatment centers to take up the slack for the mentally ill. Once the Donaldson case was decided, that was end of the advocacy for the mentally ill by the ACLU and its ilk. Those halfway houses and treatment centers never came into existence (the Christian sects built shelters and helped some) and the institutionalized mentally ill were cast loose on the street to fend for themselves. For the ACLU, they were now free and that was that. Free to exercise bad judgment, go hungry, play in traffic, get on drugs and alcohol, ignore taking medications that helped them, free to get beaten and ripped off, sleep in store doorways, free to get all sorts of diseases that went untreated, and ultimately free to freeze to death while sleeping under a bridge in January.

      But the Fifth Amendment was vindicated. Maybe.

      • kasandra

        Absolutely right. I mean, what were these people thinking? Just what do they believe a paranoid schizoprenic would think you you told him to show up every day at a particular location to take some medication, especially those with unpleasant side effects? He'd think it was part of a conspiracy to put poisons in his system and that he was going to stay as far away from the halfway house as possible even if they were funded. I believe the diagnosis the Soviets used to put political dissidents into insane asylums was "failure to appreciate reality." Talk about a "failure to appreciate reality" – the ACLU's mode of thinking really takes the cake.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

    How do we best stop a crazy person with a gun in their hand and murder in their heart? It's such a no-brainer that the question practically answers itself. Yet naive gun control supporters seem to prefer simply to reduce the ability of the armed and deranged from killing, rather than stopping them outright.

  • marios

    The most gun violence tragedies do gangsters but not mentally ill people. Look at our President "home city" Chicago with the most strictest gun control laws in IL. Chicago is #1 by criminal rate with gun violence in USA!!! Where Democrats rule those states have much more criminal gun violations death rate. As notorious Rahm Emmanuel said "Good crisis cannot be wasted". leftists in Power use Newport tragedy to repeal 2nd amendment. All totalitarian regimes did in as the first step to secure their Power. Obama and his accomplices failed to make reason for gun control in "Fast and furious" but did not missed another chance with NJ school tragedy. They are not going to disarm gangsters in South Chicago but probably cherish the thought that those gangsters, mostly black and some Latinos, will be used in future against law abiding citizens…whom they disarm to that time.

    • tagalog

      So an appropriate "gun control" measure that would have some chance to be effective would be longer jail/prison sentences for criminals who use firearms in committing their particular crimes.

      I'm all for that.

  • Jeanne

    You republicans will say anything to hod on to your guns….I guess your fantasy is to live in a Clint Eastwood Movie…'the perfect america'!!!???

    • tagalog

      I have plenty to say about holding on to my guns, but in the end I just say, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" with the emphasis added.

      I think the Second Amendment should be respected and upheld just the same way the First Amendment is.

    • Mary Sue

      and you'll say anything to get them taken away?

      You have no idea what a "perfect america" would look like or how to get there.

  • kasandra

    Of course, Jeanne, you immediately set up a straw man and attack rather than relying on facts or reasoning. The fact is that the crimes are committed by criminals. Criminals don't care about following the law, including background checks and gun registration. That's why they're criminals. So they will have guns. Okay, got me so far. What people oppose is measures that will restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to have guns or measures that are certain to morph into databases, visits from the authorities, seizures, etc. If you want to have a cow, why don't you have one against democrats who elected Obama who placed Eric Holder in charge of DOJ which has brought something like a grand total of 45 prosecutions out of the hundreds of thousands of violations of existing Federal gun laws that have occurred in the past 4 years. Well, either that or move to Chicago where you can be a victim of gun crime in the (Democrat controlled) city with the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. Bon voyage.

  • Julia R

    It's debatable whether the mentally ill are more violent. Does this include depression, chronic anxiety, etc.?
    But bear in mind that many psychotropic meds have been clearly linked to CAUSING violence. Some even have black-box warnings posted on them.
    America switched from the mental institution as a method of dealing with the mentally ill, to drugging them up. Guess why… (where's the money???)
    It's certainly true that many killers lately have been disturbed – it's also true that most (if not all) of them were on psychotropic meds which were of course supposed to "cure" them.

  • JacksonPearson

    "Liberals Go Crazy for the Mentally Ill"

    I can fully understand why liberals would be nuts about the Mentally Ill. Because they're all cut from the same cloth and connect easily with them. There's nothing rational about liberalism, or Progressives!

  • Lady_Dr

    AS usual a brilliant argument by Ann Coulter. But the best line of all was not part of the argument, it was:

    (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)

    That is going to raise the ire of a few people. I must say as much as I deplore the Obamas the one good thing that came out of the 2008 election was that we do not have Cindy and Meghan McCain living in the White House!

  • Gloria Stewart

    Ann Coulter seems to be an advocate of involuntary commitment of the mentally ill. If this is done absent a predicate act on the part of the mentally ill person, we are treading on very dangerous ground. In this atmosphere how long do you think it would take for mental illness to be defined downward until it became a political view unfavorable to the Obama administration. Do you want the people who gave us political correctness to give us the standards for normal behavior?

    Please recall that in the last decade of the Soviet Union political dissidents were sent to psychiatrists who declared them mentally ill on the basis of their political ideas. They were then committed. The United States and other western nations opposed the entry of Soviet psychiatrists into international bodies that dealt with psychiatric issue because they believed that Soviet psychiatrists acted as agents of the state.

    I agree that the armed citizen is the best bulwark against crime.

  • Gid

    You do have to interfere with people's freedom sometimes. I once read of a 70 year old woman who cycled through the Andes. Nobody told her that for her own good, she shouldn't do it. Nobody said that medical personnel would be needed to rescue her at 20,000 feet, and so she shouldn't do it. That is good. On the other hand, you get 70 year old women with Alzheimer's who can't be trusted to go on a walk out of their front door. They get lost, wander for days, and require organized searches to find them. The same is true of the mentally ill. There's a saying about some of them that they "died with their rights on". You have to remove some of their freedoms, in order to give them freedom. But there are problems with this. For instance, some mentally ill people commit crimes despite taking drugs, and the drugs can be wrong for them. I knew an old lady who was given Haldol, which made her delusional, until it was removed. Presumably some of the recent mentally ill killers had seen psychiatrists, but the psychiatrists didn't sound the alarm, at least sufficiently. Taking away guns from normal people, to protect us from guns in the hands of insane people and bad people, is not the answer. For one thing, it would not work. We do have to force some mentally ill to take drugs, or even to be incarcerated, with all the potential for mistakes that are involved. And that's not going to be a hundred percent solution either.

    • tagalog

      Thank you. Well said.

  • ben t

    I was born in 1937. The U.S. population was less than 129 million. Today our population is 320-350 million, depending on the no. of illegals and/or unregistered. OF COURSE we are going to have more mass killings. We had mass killings in the past but they were fewer because we had fewer people. This fact is in addition to the liberal b.s. policy re: the certifiable psychotics .