Photo credit: Foxinterviewer.com

by Jim McCarthy

Bacon’s Rebellion recently hosted a series of articles exhaustively parsing the procedures and policies at the University of Virginia regarding threat assessments in preventing violence related to the killing of three students and wounding of two by a colleague. The examination included the possible human failures that contributed to the event. Under state legislation, institutions of higher education in the Commonwealth had been tasked to produce policies and procedures designed to afford safety to campus communities, including intervention somewhat similar to “red flag” laws. The UVa shooter had been previously identified to campus authorities as “possessing” a firearm; upon inspection, a cache of arms was discovered in his dorm room. Cause and effect? Broken procedures and policies? Negligence?

There is no arithmetic or mathematical equation that governs or can predict cause and effect in human behavior. Unlike gravity, laws and rules of society and its organizations are essentially the overt expression of norms of behavior functioning as guides and generally will succeed because they are accepted by most as necessary to civility and peace and safety. When these guardrails fail, the effects can be deadly.

Logically, cause is the event or situation that triggers or creates an effect in the natural world and according to science. Some laws of nature are well understood and acknowledged as inevitable and predictable. Laws of science are not always well understood but rank high in predictability of outcomes or effect. Neither paradigm is reliably applicable in society.

In an uncertain world where humans function, especially the contemporary one, and more particularly it seems in the United States, heated debates are engaged concerning culture conflicts about pro-life or pro-choice, same sex marriage, teaching of history in schools, and the right to bear arms, among a few.

In 2019, the Colorado legislature passed a “red flag” law permitting seizure of weapons upon a court-issued Extreme Risk Protective Order following a petition by a family member or law enforcement. In early 2020, during a radio interview, the sheriff of El Paso County, where Colorado Springs is located, stated his opposition to the red flag provision noting that his deputies “would not petition their own orders unless there were ‘exigent circumstances.’” The sheriff concluded that, absent exigency, “there is no legitimate purpose for searching someone’s house under a civil order.”

This position was consistent with a resolution of the County’s governing body which, while not defiant toward the law, declared the County to be a Second Amendment “preservation” jurisdiction reserving the right to challenge the implementation of the law. For context, El Paso is the most populous county in Colorado with 478,000 residents.

Known as the Centennial State for having achieved statehood 100 years following the Constitution, Colorado is an “open carry” jurisdiction with minor restrictions. On Saturday, November 19th, five individuals at a night club in Colorado Springs were murdered, and at least eighteen injured by a young man armed with an AR-15-style rifle. According to reports, the carnage was lessened by the heroic efforts of one or two unarmed patrons who subdued the gunman. While questions remain about motive, the night club catered to LGBTQI patrons.

Several sources reported that the shooter had been arrested in June 2021 by the sheriff following a bomb threat and weapons possession reported by his mother. No charges were brought and no order was filed to impound his weapons. Cause? Effect? Negligence? Defiance of the law?

Bacon’s Rebellion published an article, “To Be or Not to Be Elected” (September 28, 2022) with this cautionary excerpt:

During 2019, the General Assembly adopted several firearms-control measures including a “red flag” law permitting seizure of weapons under court order where a threat to the possessor or others was shown. Three Virginia sheriffs publicly declared that they would not enforce such court orders, a view that was reinforced by a tidal wave of resolutions from local legislatures declaring their jurisdictions to be “Second Amendment” sanctuaries with many asserting a provision refraining from the expenditure of public funds for those purposes.

The UVa and Colorado Springs murders may be seen to share some closely similar contributing causes without necessarily informing predictable effects that could have been prevented. Americans are a very tolerant constituency. It may be, however, that the regret for the murders of fellow citizens will impel or motivate a sense of frustration with questionable assertions about the absolute freedom claimed by some with dangerous effects upon the lives of others.

While in 1776 the Declaration of Independence enunciated and enumerated an unalienable right to life, Congress in 2005 abrogated the individual common law right of every citizen to sue and hold manufacturers of firearms liable (Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms) in favor of the few. In 2004, the federal ban on assault weapons expired under a sunset provision. Fewer than three years later, SCOTUS divined an individual right to keep and bear arms (D.C. v Heller) for a population of 300 million. Two and a quarter centuries after a Revolutionary War to ordain and establish an unalienable right to life, the United States finds itself witnessing mass shootings and murders that have not jumped the shark.

There is no formula to fabricate a law or rule that will abolish such incidents or even effectively define the segue from cause to effect. At the same time, there is sufficient commonality of experience from which society can demand from itself and its members less absolutism and greater empathy if only the sole motivation is regret.

Since 2005, that witness has provided some painful examples: Virginia Tech (2007); Sandy Hook (2012); Aurora movie theatre (2012); AME church (2015); Pulse night club (2016); Las Vegas (2017); Parkland (2018); Buffalo supermarket (2022); Uvalde (2022); and now UVa (2022) and Colorado Springs. A Chesapeake, VA Walmart, at this writing, is the scene of a shooting killing 6 where the shooter committed suicide.

When will we ever learn?

Jim McCarthy, a former New York attorney, resides in Northern Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

124 responses to “Cause, Effect, and Regret”

  1. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Great writing Jim. I haven’t digested it all, but you are so right – humans can not be predicted.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Thanx. My guess is that any solutions implemented will not be perfekt nor universally accepted. However, we should be better off when mass shootings/murders are exceptions.

  2. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Humans can’t be predicted, but what can be predicted is taking morality out of the equation, putting porn and hate in schools (and my definition of hate would be different than some), allowing schools and not parents to be responsible for “teaching” non academic subjects, all contribute to this. Allowing multiple tiers of justice doesn’t help. Cronyism and crime allowed rampant doesn’t help. A citizenry that only goes to vote doesn’t help.

    So many issues: guns are the tool they use but you can easily get illegally. Why bother going the legal route when the “leaders” either do nothing or are for removing your rights – putting you back into enslavement times when humans were refused their legal rights to protect themselves.

  3. Jim, in your next to last paragraph every one of those criminals were known to others [include LEOs] and yet nothing was done to protect society from them. We have decreased our mental health beds by 95% since the 1970s…… yet few talk about that ISSUE.. which is the common thread in these mass killings [don’t forget the Christmas parade car killing]. Also the US Secret Service study on mass shootings determined that nearly 9o% of the killers let their intent be known to others….and again nothing was done.

    Regarding your citation of the 2005 law — that was focused on legal action against manufactures of legal, safe items which are misused by people; not against liability for sub-standard, dangerous items [should Ford be sued when its car is used by a drunk driver to kill a pedestrian?]

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Common law would permit an injured party to seek liability against Ford in the circumstance cited. Auto manufacturers have not sought insulation from liability as did firearms manufacturers. The purpose of the citation to the 2005 law was to emphasize the loss of a universal right of the people in favor of the interests of the few. Tort liability is not limited to dangerous or faulty manufacture. The Sandy Hook parents have succeeded thus far in holding the firearms manufacturer liable for negligent marketing of the weapons. It is irrelevant that the shooter may have had mental health issues.

      1. “It is irrelevant that the shooter may have had mental health issues.”

        Congratulations, in one sentence you have created the silliest Jim McCarthy “silly walk” ever. That is a comedic accomplishment seldom achieved. Way to go.

        Without severe mental illness the murders you decry would not have been committed. Unless, of course, you are so deluded you believe that mass murder of innocent people is a sane act.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Nice try! A taste of Sherlockian sophistry to distort a statement. The sentence you seek to parse to your satisfaction connects to the prior sentence concerning negligent marketing. Mass murder of sophists might benefit readers.

          1. “Mass murder of sophists might benefit readers.”

            Well that’s an ugly threat and call for murders. So much for the idea you do not exult in violence. Your hypocrisy destroys any credibility your post may have aspired to.

            We may have to create a new category, Jim McCarthy’s murderous walks, aka perp walks for calling “fire” in a crowded blog.

            Your statement that “It is irrelevant that the shooter may have had mental health issues.” is among the most deranged assertions I have ever seen, including those of severely mentally ill killers. Congrats, or something.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Tiresome, senseless blather. Your frustration is understood. Adult dialogue can be difficult and challenging. Post the results of votes on creating a new category.

          3. “Adult dialogue can be difficult and challenging.”

            Indeed it can, you demonstrate that daily. You going to recant your advocacy of murder?

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            Have you ever known Jimmy to admit error?

          5. Not even when he has advocated murder as he has here.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Hopefully infamous Last Word. Sophistry par excellance.

          7. Still waiting for you to retract your threat that I should be murdered…

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            It took courage to acknowledge your sophistry. Now you can consider Shakespeare’s lines about “killing all the lawyers” as metaphor for mine about sophists. Ain’t personal.

          9. But yours was ad hominem to me. Keep up the silly walks, murder advocate.

            Just out of curiosity, how was your trip back from Idaho?

        2. Matt Adams Avatar

          I don’t know the “legal reasoning” which the author uses to conflate firearm manufacturers with vehicle manufacturers is pretty silly.

      2. Matt Hurt Avatar

        So, could families of the victims of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre sue Ford Motor Company for negligence and reasonably expect to win their case? The weapon used in that attack was a Ford Escape. Please understand I am not intending to promote any narrative, but I really don’t understand how manufacturers can be held liable for unintended/illegal uses of their products. There are very likely few products that have not been used to kill someone in the last couple of hundred years. If this is the precedent, the manufacturer of almost any good is liable for the lives snuffed out with their products.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Your closing line is the one many attorneys evaluate when considering a client’s case. Each and every case depends upon factors and circumstances often unique. If there is manufacturer liability in the Wisconsin case, a bright attorney will find it. The iconic case of the MacDonald’s hot coffee injury is an example. A death is not required only an injury. BTW, it’s not exactly a precedent since each case will be argued concerning proximate cause, risks, etc.

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar

            I guess my question is that if some crazed individual used a product in a manner in which it was not intended, and I don’t think murder is a use for which any product is intended, how can the manufacturer be held liable? For example, in 2019 (the most recent statistics I can find on the FBI website), there were 397 homicides committed with blunt objects (such as hammers) and 364 committed with rifles of all types (I could not find a breakdown of specific models). Given this fact, are hammer manufacturers not at more risk of lawsuits than rifle manufacturers?

            Again, I’m just trying to figure this stuff out. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “…and I don’t think murder is a use for which any product is intended…”

            But killing human beings is… unlike hammers…

          3. Matt Hurt Avatar

            Are those folks who are killed by hammers any less dead than those killed by rifles? Is the pain any greater for the families of those who were murdered?

            Think about it this way. The most heinous mass murder that I am aware of was perpetrated with a box cutter. Almost 3,000 lost their lives that day.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            But in terms of manufacturer liability, the manufacturer did not design the hammer, box cutter, or automobile specifically to kill human beings. That is the difference, imo.

          5. Matt Hurt Avatar

            That seems to be a philosophical debate and not a legal one, but I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. These weapons are marketed to civilians as defensive weapons, not offensive, unless you have the power of Authorization for Use of Military Force. Then you can market your arms so that the federal government can legally kill as many folks as you’d like, without a declaration of war to boot!

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “These weapons are marketed to civilians as defensive weapons, not offensive…”

            Just like the tobacco companies never marketed to children (nudge nudge, wink wink) the weapons manufacturers never market to militia military wanna be type… you know the type that build an arsenal in their home/dorm room/apartment and believe we are in a fight to defend America and her European Judeochristian Southern heritage.

          7. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            In fact, the Sandy Hook parents commenced legal action not based upon the firearms but their aggressive marketing to youth.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            In the Sandy Hook litigation the parents sued on a theory of negligent marketing, specifically targeting youth. Tort liability is not limited to manufacturing defects or improper use by a purchaser. The MacDonald’s hot coffee spill is an example.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          I agree with Matt here but it’s tangled up with how cigarettes played out and now oxy-contin.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            When the safety of the greater society is at stake, e.g., unalienated right to life, ordering related rights is easier.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            If the govt mandates safety features for a product, then that empowers individuals to take legal action when harm results.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            That’s one option. Legal action can emanate from common law principles which are the foundation of many contemporary actions. See MacPherson v Buick and Palsgraf.

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          To me there seems to be a difference in that the Ford Escape is not designed to enhance nor marketed for its ability to kill human beings. Guns (especially those used in masks shooting these days) are. Does it seem reasonable that given such design and marketing that someone is bound to use it that way? Should the manufacturer/marketer hold some liability for those foreseeable actions?

          To me the bigger issue is accidental shootings where the manufacturer could have incorporated safety features that would have protected the victim. Think about safety features in cars. Why shouldn’t the manufacturer be liable for selling an unsafe product?

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You are on target. Safety of the greater society may become a criterion applicable to manufacturers not otherwise responsible. Auto and air safety requirement features are a good example. It’s not necessarily that the products per se are unsafe but the foreseeable injury to others exists.

      3. Matt Adams Avatar

        “Auto manufacturers have not sought insulation from liability as did firearms manufacturers.”

        If their product functioned as intended there is no grounds for suit. That’s pure unadulterated idiocy to think you could sue a manufacturer for someone else’s actions.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Whether no grounds are determined in a legal proceeding, the right to sue lis not abrogated. As noted in the Sandy Hook litigation, grounds upon which to find liability are not limited to the products only or their negligent use, idiotic as that may seem. The classic theory is set forth in Palsgraf concerning foreseeability.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Whether no grounds are determined in a legal proceeding, the right to sue lis not abrogated.”

            Um yeah no, what your describing is frivolous litigation.

            What you noted in Sandy Hook was not based upon usage, or failure to perform as intended.

            It’s the same grounds that was used to sue Tobacco Companies.

            Palsgraf cannot be met using the reasoning you’re trying to use. Stick to retirement.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Frivolous they may be like those suits in the Big Steal. The Sandy Hook litigation based upon negligent marketing survived thru SCOTUS, then was settled. The dissent in Palsgraf has survived in later tort liability claims like Sandy Hook. You may have missed the fact that product defect or use was not cited in SH. Stay away from what you don’t know.

          3. Matt Adams Avatar

            WTF does Trump have to do with anything being discussed, besides your need to bring him up about everything?

            What you described would be frivolous litigation, period.

            “At the outset, legal experts said the case had little chance of succeeding, believing that plaintiffs’ claims ran headlong into gun manufacturers’ federal protections from most litigation when their weapons are used to commit crimes.

            But the lawsuit based its case on an exception that allows for litigation over sales and marketing practices that violate state and federal law. The families contend that Remington did so by marketing and promoting its products in a way that encouraged illegal behavior.”

            https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/feb/16/sandy-hook-families-gunmaker-settle-suit/

            Palsgrsf has not been cited in any Sandy Hook cases, you again should stay in retirement. That’s also a nice lovely appeal to authority, which you aren’t and likely never have been.

          4. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            You are close to some insight. Palsgraf was never cited as used in the SH litigation. It was cited, as you now seem to be appreciating, that manufacturer liability can extend beyond product defect or user negligence. Litigation that may be frivolous in your opinion is ordinarily determined following the filing of a lawsuit as in the Big Steal claims. That’s WTF is the similarity. Keep studying!

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            Oh looky, Jimmy used a backhanded compliment in an attempt to be witty. Your need to bring up Trump detracts from anything you ever say. It has no barring on the topic, you again bring it up as some sorta dig at me or anyone who doesn’t agree with your politics. Problem being, I never voted for the man.

            Frivolous litigation is determined in accordance with each individual states rules.

            Hows about you regale us with a case you argued before court and won thereby proving your legal bonafides you like to tout.

          6. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Frivolous litigation is found by judges based upon principles of jurisprudence sometimes supported by court criteria and/or attorney canons of ethics. No digs at you, simply points to assist your understanding. If y’all think the Big Steal litigation was frivolous, just admit it and refrain from imitating TDS as diagnosed by Charles Krauthammer as affecting Trump. How about you stay in your lane. Winning cases does not prove legal bone fides as you may recognize by dissents which become majorities. It’s uncomfortable, I know, being in the minority.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Charles Krauthammer” has been dead since 2018 and he coined the term Bush Derangement Syndrome.

            https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

            I’ve not made a single statement for or against any lawsuit brought forth as a result of the 2020 election. The absence of my discent or approval matters not, because it was moot.

            “Winning cases does not prove legal bone fides as you may recognize by dissents which become majorities”

            That’s a deflection bub, which you often invoke when someone questions you. Like on another thread where you asked someone to condemn something, but didn’t do the same in your part.

            You’re a hypocrite but that’s been long established.

            Stay in my lane? You’re trying to punch above your weight class bucko.

          8. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Read on MacDuff. Do the research. Krauthammer subsequently (perhaps in his role as psychiatrist) coined Trump Derangement Syndrome for behavior Mr. Krauthammer deemed crazy. What’s deflection are your flustered comments that are incorrect.

          9. Matt Adams Avatar

            Again, the term originated with Bush 43. It has been modified since this point by lots of people to obfuscate.

            “What’s deflection are your flustered comments that are incorrect.”

            Could you try again in coherent English or are you having a stroke?

          10. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Mr. Krauthammer coined the term Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s been obfuscated by Trump defenders attempting to apply TDS to woke liberals. Can’t do anything long distance for your typos or reading comprehension. Get some rest.

          11. Matt Adams Avatar

            He coined the term BDS in 2003, every other iteration was built upon that premise. Read his book then reference him.

            ” Can’t do anything long distance for your typos or reading comprehension”

            Given your typos that’s someone in a glass house throwing stones. Take the loss and move on.

          12. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            He coined the term TDS in a publication named the Oregonian in 2017. I believe. BDS was also his. Subsequently woke conservatives applied TDS to liberals. As TDS, the description covered “crazy” in Krauthammer’s article.

          13. Matt Adams Avatar

            “James McCarthy 3 minutes ago
            He coined the term TDS in a publication named the Oregonian in 2017. I believe. BDS was also his. Subsequently woke conservatives applied TDS to liberals. As TDS, the description covered “crazy” in Krauthammer’s article.”

            He coined BDS in 2003 (which I’ve told you over and over and even provided you a reference, not that you’re intelligent enough to use those) and all subsequent iterations were a derivative of that term.

            Read his book than utilize his name and quote him. “The Point of it All”

          14. Matt Adams Avatar

            That has nothing to do with what you’re arguing. Krauthammer coined BDS in 2003, all other incantations are derivative.

          15. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Except TDS which Krauthammer himself defined as a distinct malady applied to P45. Nothing derivative about it. It has been misapplied by his defenders.

          16. Matt Adams Avatar

            Again, it’s a derivative and has nothing to do with anything outside your need to bring up Trump when he not relevant.

            Learn what a derivative is, then utilize the word.

            This line of red herrings and non sequiturs is over, I’ll give you the last word you so desperately desire to bless us with you abounding wisdom.

            s/

          17. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Denial is the first stage of grief.

    2. kls, Good and rational comment!

      We had far too many people incarcerated in mental hospitals when court ordered deinstitutionalization started in the ’70s. However, it was not a good remedy to dump them on the street with inadequate funding and services as we have done. The results are a national disgrace, individually tragic and sometimes deadly.

      More than half of gun deaths each year are suicides, mostly old white guys – many of them rural. Roughly 1/4 are gang/drug related. Of the balance a few are high profile mass events, committed almost universally by people with severe mental illness. As you note, most are well known to authorities before they start killing people.

      A recent study of all high profile mass murders in the last 50+ years found they were all suicides in which deranged people took innocents along with them.

      On a practical level, even for those who do not believe in the Constitution, it is far easier and less expensive to deal with a small number of people with severe mental illness than to oppress some 200M+ law abiding gun owners. Perhaps we could try that. The obsession with guns serves neither the nation or people with severe mental illness well. It does set the stage for repeated orgies of emotional outrage that do nothing to solve problems.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        One big issue is that these severely mentally ill shooters have easy access to weapons.

        1. Only if they violate the law. Enforce existing laws that prohibit possession of firearms by people with severe mental illness.

          The concept is simple, and Constitutional. That’s a twofer and it does not abridge the rights of 340M law abiding citizens. What’s not to like about that?

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            Nothing, but the problem is their end state is the removal of all firearms from “common folk”.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Only if they violate the law.”

            So most of the recent mass shooters had legal access to guns. So… either they don’t meet your definition of “severely mentally ill”, the gun restriction laws are inadequate, or there are simply too many guns – or all three.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            The “mentally ill” is a rabbit-hole the right uses to evade a resolution.

            If they kill, they can be found to be mentally ill – after but finding them BEFORE and denying them guns is a no go.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I am at the point that I don’t think we will ever learn.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Illegitimi non corborundum.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar

    FWIW, I don’t think this is an assault weapons issue per se.

    It’s more about weapons that are capable of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time.

    And it’s about our continued references to “mental health” but our collective refusal to actually link it in a direct and effective way to the purchase – and/or ownership of weapons capable of mass killings.

    We seem to want it both ways – leave gun rights alone but somehow stop the folks doing mass killings.

    There is no way to do this without affecting gun “rights”.

    Right now, the gun “rights” of these killers is considered more
    important than the “rights” of the innocents they kill.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “Guns have rights too, my friend.”

  6. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    “When will we ever learn?” I already have. This is life in the 21st century. Mass shootings? Sort of used to it now. I still find these acts repulsive, but I expect them now. When is the next one? This week? Next week?

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Indeed, becoming used to such horrors reflects the tolerance noted in the article. Given the competing “rights” issues, complacency assures continuation.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Ye in 2024…

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Faithful can be the running mate.

    3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Another factor not being discussed is the deinstitutionalization of many mentally ill people. Back in the late 1930s, my maternal grandfather was appointed as the chief engineer (stationary) at a new mental hospital in Minnesota. The patient population was quite varied in their illness and ability to function with others. Some were confined to themselves, but many were given some level of freedom on the campus. These patients worked on the hospital farm, in sundry workshops and assisting staff care for patients. But all of them were institutionalized.

      Most certainly, some were prone to violence but were segregated from the general population. How many of today’s people with the same violent tendencies are on our streets. Toss in rampant drug use, and should we be surprised at the level of violence.

      And, of course, we dare not criticize those who make entertainment fortunes by desensitizing most of us to violence.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        And as the population has grown to 325 million, the per cent of individuals with mental health issues has also grown. Care and/or containment of this population cohort is indeed another factor.

        1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
          f/k/a_tmtfairfax

          The undeniable fact is that there are a lot of people on the streets who would have been confined in a mental institution decades ago. But, of course, we don’t want to discuss the fact that these people being on the streets is a significant cause of crime today.

          As per your earlier comment on penumbra, my Con Law professor had clerked for Justice Brennan and viewed the world similarly but made it quite clear he did not believe in emanations and penumbras as a source of constitutional rights. Virtually all of the class agreed that the use of contraception was no one’s business but concluded Justice Douglas’ opinion had some serious holes.

          It’s why I find both Clinton’s and Obama’s failure to put their chips on the line during their first two years in office to get some level of compromise that would have resulted in passage of the Freedom of Choice Act so regretful. Passage of FOCA would have avoided a significant problem adding to the anger in society.

          Both Burger and Blackmun screwed up royally, thinking that removing the abortion debate from society would avoid many problems. But either Clinton or Obama could have fixed their screwup. It’s too bad that Kaine and Collins won’t be successful.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Your penumbra dissatisfaction gained some traction in Dobbs and the NY gun control statute. IMO, originalism and textualism buttressed by “deeply rooted” analysis fails promotion of emerging values not within the precise language of founding documents. Those criteria appear more merely to rationalize rejection of precedents upon which many had come to rely. The exercise of legal might does not necessarily mean a right conclusion. Political failure to adopt legislation to protect emerging rights or reliance is not an excuse to abrogate precedent.

          2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            U.S. v. Darby; Erie RR v. Tompkins; Brown v. Bd. of Education; Mapp v. Ohio; Gideon v. Wainright; Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections; Brandenburg v. Ohio; Frontiero v. Richardson; Loving v. Virginia; Miller v. California; and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, for example.

            Essentially, you seem to be arguing that SCOTUS precedent can be overturned in one direction only. If so, the Second Amendment becomes critical as “heads, I win; tails, you lose” doesn’t work.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Thomas cited a penumbra of 2A protection in the case overturning NY’s concealed weapons statute. Penumbra cuts in both directions. My view is that, in light of a precedent of a significant duration of time and accommodation by the states, the necessity or urgency for overturning on a legal analysis based upon originalism or text or not deeply rooted is a questionable judgment. Unlike the precedent of separate but equal, SCOTUS must consider whether overturning causes more harm than good. IMO, Dobbs was not necessary and the abortion debate could have been left to the political arena without being thrust upon states to become further enmeshed in the turmoil.

          4. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            I don’t believe in constitutional emanations or penumbras in any instance, in any case, on any issue or by any judge or justice.

            If one doesn’t use originalism, then aren’t justices free to rule any way they want on any case. If Justice A can interpret the Constitution without regard to its history, so can Justice B. Justice B is free to overrule Justice A and can be overruled by Justice C. What neutral, fixed standard should govern SCOTUS decisions?

            Many legal scholars on the left have opined that Blackmun’s analysis in Roe was deeply flawed. I agree even though I would vote for Senator Kaine and Senator Collin’s bill restoring Roe if I were in Congress.

            The bottom line is that Congress fails to do its job year after year by not finding sufficient consensus to adopt legislation addressing key issues. Instead, we see unsupportable executive orders and flawed court decisions that any first-year law student could rip apart.

          5. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            As a matter of fact and reality, judicial discretion is actually not limited. Nor have I asserted that history is not essential to framing decisions. In his foreword to one of Scalia’s books, Judge Frank Easterbrook admonished Scalia to consider the contemporary context in considering any decision disturbing precedent. IMO, the failure of Congress relates more to the resistance against popular vote power than a failure of legislative will. The gap may have been filled by executive orders and struggling jurisprudence in the courts. With respect to the matter at hand – safeguarding of the unalienable right to life – there is likely more agreement among the national constituency than in judicial and political institutions. A “deeply flawed” opinion about Roe is an opinion.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” The undeniable fact is that there are a lot of people on the streets who would have been confined in a mental institution decades ago. But, of course, we don’t want to discuss the fact that these people being on the streets is a significant cause of crime today.”

            Do you mean the folks who are, in fact, mass killers today?

            Years ago, they would have been found hiding in plain sight and incarcerated?

            Were such people also denied from owning weapons?

            So, are you advocating that we return to the days where we somehow found out who was mentally ill – even those that did not openly exhibit it , i.e. hiding in plain sight, deny them weapons purchases and/or institutionalize them as determined by a mental health professional vice a judge or LEO?

        2. “the per cent of individuals with mental health issues has also grown.”

          The number of people with severe mental illness has grown with the population. Please provide documentation they have increased as a percentage too.

          1. As usual, more nonsense and false assertions. It’s another Jim McCarthy silly walk.

            The linked article documents an increase in mental health staff and services, mostly outpatient. It does NOT assert an increase in the incidence of mental health issues in the population as McCarthy falsely claimed.

            The increase in staff and services reported in the study does reflect the shift from centralized institution based mental health services to dispersed community based programming that were part of the discussion here.

            There are economies to centralized programming with a half dozen mental hospitals in Virginia versus people being dispersed throughout the state.

            The paradigm for around the last 50 years has been that the quality of life in a less restrictive dispersed environment is an improvement over centralized institutions for most people with mental illness.

            Funding was supposed to follow the client to the community. In Virginia, and in many other places, that did not happen as needed. There were two issues. First, high fixed costs of state mental hospitals meant that money was not freed up to be reallocated to communities as quickly as people were discharged. The GA was not willing to increase funding needed to make up the difference. Second, dispersed programming is not as cost efficient as centralized services, it costs more per unit delivered to provide.

            Virginia’s communities largely have not received the additional funding needed. That in part has resulted in mental health services failures like we have seen at UVa and likely Chesapeake. Institutional failures like with Cho at Tech and likely Jones at UVa have made the problems worse.

        3. Matt Adams Avatar

          “And as the population has grown to 325 million, the per cent of individuals with mental health issues has also grown. Care and/or containment of this population cohort is indeed another factor.”

          Comments like this makes your complaint about typos hilarious, doesn’t it lowlander?

      2. The ’30s were certainly a different age in America’s view of who needed to be institutionalized and why. Many changes were needed. All the changes have not been for the better.

        FWIW in Virginia starting in the ’70s I worked with programs, including several in the Richmond area, that provided community based services including for people discharged from state mental hospitals. The programs in the Richmond area received many people who had been discharged from Central State Hospital in Petersburg.

        We were horrified at the first batches, many had no or very little indication that they needed to have been institutionalized in the first place. Almost all of the women had “appendectomies” and a significant number of men and women had sunken spots in their foreheads where the “doctors” had operated on them to cure “headaches”.

        As the state hospitals emptied out the more open units they started moving residents from more restrictive units into them. In due course this included people from the forensic units for the criminally insane. When many of those folks were in turn deinstitutionalized and hit the local community programs it was a shock. The programs were unprepared, and unfunded, to provide the level of services those people needed.

        40+ years later it is not surprising to find some of those people are still out there and are a danger to themselves and others. The encampments of destitute, mentally ill and drug addled people that have sprung up around the country are a disgrace to us all, and a measure of how we have failed those least able to care for themselves.

        Our failure to deal effectively with young people from succeeding generations with severe mental illness is also an ongoing debacle. It regularly provides screaming headlines, tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth when one of them commits mass murders.

        The number of people with forensic severe mental illness that makes them a danger to themselves and others is relatively small. America could provide effective services, and in some cases segregated living environments similar to those your father ran, to them to protect them from themselves and the rest of us from them. We have chosen not to do that. It would cost a hell of a lot less than what we’re sending to the Ukraine.

        There are few indications that will change. Some people would prefer to rage at guns, others do not care about their fellow citizens with severe mental illness.

        It is coming up on a century from when your father started working with people with severe mental illness. It is a long time passing. When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn? Is this a great country or what?

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    We’re not capable of learning… half the population is below mean intelligence.

    But, maybe some sanctuary sheriffs may reconsider boneheadedness as a response. Not likely, see first sentence…

    1. The question is which half, although the answer often seems to be “both”.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Oh, yeah? I learned today that Glorifi, an anti-woke bank, failed after only a few months. What’s it mean, Alfie?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        A new one will incorporate tomorrow, and the investors with something left will invest in the new bank. Does Biden’s lift of the Trump 401(k) rules banning social investments include antisocial investments too?

        Given that a solution, having succeded for 20 years now, exists and we will not implement it proves willful ignorance and that Churchill was correct, Americans will do the right thing after trying all else.

        https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          “There will always be an England as long as there is a Bank of America.”

  8. Deckplates Avatar

    This behavior is most probably one of the most difficult to understand of anything in our world. “Oh God, why do men dig iron from the earth and use it in making war to kill each other?” Paraphrase from the “Winds of War,” Herman Wouk.

    “Cause and Effect” are key parts of some of the basics in teaching behavior leading to a more desirable outcome. In most religions, to include Christianity and Buddhism, it is the philosophy of making a choice which has the outcome of the effect in which people create.

    It is not possible to remove all the “iron” from human hands; be it guns, knives, automobiles, etc. We can only teach & in practicality take measures to control or reduce it. Those “crime prevention” measures will also have a cause and effect. Can we teach people why it is wrong to kill?

    I believe we can deal with this problem if we, you know, WORK TOGETHER, to get better solutions in dealing with the crazy killings. And do it in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the land. IF we do not come together in dealing with these killings, then we will be back to the cause and effect of mad people killing others.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      IMO, political and social leadership are required to forge solutions. At present, the voice of the people seems stymied by complacency, acceptance, and/or conflict over choices. Such solutions are certain, as evidenced in posts to this thread, to be condemned. Balancing the unalienable right to life against others should be more of a no-brainer but is made to be seen as impossible.

  9. Michael Fruitman Avatar
    Michael Fruitman

    Mental health is a worldwide issue; gun violence is not. Not much will change until we realize that fealty to the Second Amendment cannot overtake caring about human life. Only the USA has this enormous number of gun deaths; only the USA has such easy access to guns. Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the truth.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      Yeah they just murder people with other means world wide.

      Procuring a firearm isn’t “easy”.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Except when 2A zealots state the ease with which criminals obtain firearms.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          “James McCarthy 10 minutes ago
          Except when 2A zealots state the ease with which criminals obtain firearms.”

          What’s a 2A zealot state? If someone has not broken the law you can’t deny them rights.

          Criminals don’t acquire their firearms through legal means. So the thought that it’s easier in one place vs the other for them is, in a word uneducated.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            State meaning to say. You stated guns are not easy to procure. Often, on BR it is commented that criminals acquire weapons easily; equally often that procurement is perfectly legal via a straw man acquisition. Many criminals are well educated in avoiding the law.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            They aren’t and the fact you believe they are means you know nothing about them not should you be in the possession of them.

            Criminals by the very definition do not adhere to laws. Take a deep breath and enforce current laws before proposing new laws which will impact law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutionally protected right.

            “equally often that procurement is perfectly legal via a straw man acquisition.”

            Saved for posterity, it’s a straw purchase, which is illegal not a strawman which is a logical fallacy you’re real good at.

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Nite, Matty. Can’t wait for the next round of insults and non sequiturs. BTW, look up the term straw man purchase. You’ll learn something and expand your vocabulary.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar

            “Nite, Matty. Can’t wait for the next round of non sequiturs.”

            That’s again highly ironic given I’ve not insulted you nor have I used non sequiturs, but you have in abundance there lowlander ( ps:. That’s an adjective not a insult and someone claiming to be 1st generation Irish would know what it meant).

            I’m rather certain I could speak Gaelic to you and you wouldn’t have a clue.

            There is no such thing as a “straw man” purchase. It’s a straw purchase. A strawman is a fallacy, again which you utilize without restraint.

            https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/trafficking-straw-purchasing-in-virginia/

            PS:. I have an aunt who achieved a JD from Northwestern and clerked for a Federal Judge, she didn’t feel the need to state she was a lawyer at every whil, nor did she deflect when asked what cases she represented I court. So your batting 1000% for bulls*it bub.

  10. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    The Colorado Red Flag law seems to be broader than the Virginia statute. Colorado Revised Statutes Section 13-14.5-103((1) allows not only law enforcement but also a “FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER OF THE RESPONDENT” to seek a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order” on an ex parte basis. Section 13-14.5-102 defines “family or household member” as “(a) PERSON RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE, OR ADOPTION TO THE RESPONDENT;
    (b) PERSON WHO HAS A CHILD IN COMMON WITH THE RESPONDENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN MARRIED TO THE RESPONDENT OR HAS LIVED TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONDENT AT ANY TIME;
    (c) PERSON WHO REGULARLY RESIDES OR REGULARLY RESIDED WITH THE RESPONDENT WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS;
    (d) DOMESTIC PARTNER OF THE RESPONDENT;
    (e) PERSON WHO HAS A BIOLOGICAL OR LEGAL PARENT-CHILD
    RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT, INCLUDING STEPPARENTS AND STEPCHILDREN AND GRANDPARENTS AND GRANDCHILDREN;
    (f) PERSON WHO IS ACTING OR HAS ACTED AS THE RESPONDENT’S
    LEGAL GUARDIAN; AND
    (g) A PERSON IN ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP DESCRIBED IN SECTION 18-6-800.3 (2) WITH THE RESPONDENT.” The all-capital letter format is in the Colorado law. Section 18-6-800.3(2) addresses relationships involved in domestic violence.

    I agree with Jim in that laws alone cannot prevent all acts of violence. But why are people using Red Flag laws in many situations where they could? And where are the criticisms for their non-use by those who strongly support Red Flag laws?

    1. Unfortunately, the recent statements by the Colorado shooter’s father make it appear he is even crazier than his son. Or perhaps it is genetic. The broader language of Colorado’s Red Flag law enabling families to intervene would not and could not have helped in this case.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar

        If the mental health laws were structured as they are, it would be easier to involuntary commit someone. That could be legal grounds for no passing a background check.

        However, there must be redress, I despise Red Flag laws where a person can lose their rights without contestation or redress.

        1. Yeah, that pendulum has swung too far. It used to be (pre ’70s) that commitment was way too easy, and now it seems it is too hard. “Least restrictive environment” also too often means no supports or services. The tune Bobby McGee had it about right “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, nothin’ ain’t worth nothin’ but it’s free.”

          The lack of due process with Red Flag laws, the right to confront your accuser, is a fatal flaw in legislation with good intent. You’d think that was remediable, but it has not seemed to happen.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      That may be the million dollar question. The tools to address some mass murders appear to exist but the will to do so seem to fail. As it turns out, the Colorado Springs PD – not the county sheriff – filed the first petition for weapons removal in a case involving a voluntary surrender in a domestic incident. The COPD sought to extend the hold for an additional year.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        So, don’t we need people who might still have credibility among members of the public to talk about Red Flag laws and when they should be used? And also, the steps needed to be taken, including the obligation to swear to one’s testimony in an affidavit should be explained. Charging anyone who is caught lying on an affidavit or in testimony in the initial hearing with perjury would be helpful too.

        The individual who is the subject of a Red Flag application does get to challenge the allegations in a hearing. This is no different than other temporary restraining orders that can be issued on an ex parte basis. They all are and must be followed by notice and an opportunity for hearing to the affected person. He/she has the right to use an attorney and examine and cross-examine witnesses. Also, in Colorado, the affected person gets a copy of the initial hearing where the temporary order was issued. It should be fairly easy for an attorney or even a person proceeding pro se to spot lies.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Red flag laws like the TATs for higher education are but one avenue to mitigate the potential for mass shootings. Other posters in the thread are not persuaded preferring to emphasize mental health issues and/ or defend the catholic ownership of firearms as essential to self- defense. Nor does the weight of public opinion appear to sway decision makers. Compromise is feared more than safeguarding the unalienable right to life.

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            The people of the United States did not like Prohibition. Ergo, Congress passed, and the states ratified, the 20th Amendment that repealed the 18th Amendment. America was no longer 100% dry.

            As former Justice John Paul Stevens urged, the country could also repeal or modify the Second Amendment. I suspect there may be some in Congress who would propose legislation to do this.

            I’d certainly prefer this than listening to people who don’t understand American law and its roots in English law or who believe in constitutional penumbras and emanations. If knowledge of American legal history and basic civics was required as a prerequisite to voting, probably about 2% of otherwise eligible voters could indeed vote.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Justices Douglas and Thomas cite to penumbras in their decisions. The Second Amendment may be a factor in evaluating the safeguarding of unalienable right to life. Like it or not, the quantum of required knowledge to vote ended with guessing the number of marbles in a jar. The nation has made a huge investment in education to establish an informed citizenry. Much of voting is a normative process and, at the same time, an educational one. Hopefully, as these dynamics converge, the result will be a more perfect Union.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          A few posters here disagree. The political/cultural obstacles function in CO as barriers to red flag enforcement.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar

            “A few posters here disagree. The political/cultural obstacles function in CO as barriers to red flag enforcement.”

            Those few posters seem to be cool with denying people’s civil rights, which you know is a crime.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Load, shoot, repeat…

    Like Kinzinger said, “It only looks like courage when compared to the cowardice of the rest of the party.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement

  12. Here’s a column that addresses the kind of silliness that McCarthy’s post embodies. It is titled: The Left’s grotesque politicization of mass shootings

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/left-grotesque-politicization-mass-shootings

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      This is the third anti-woke diatribe I’ve seen with the same theme in the last week. If discussion of promoting the primacy of an unalienable right to life is grotesque, color me grotesque.

      1. This is their new play now. Get huffy when people want actual solutions, and then demand we all pray and think for a couple days before moving on.

      2. You’re grotesque. Your advocacy of murder demonstrates you don’t value life, inalienable or otherwise.

      3. This is their new play now. Get huffy when people want actual solutions, and then demand we all pray and think for a couple days before moving on.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Stick to your guns. Continue to engage the disbelievers and sophists.

  13. Youngkin gets it with a push for mental health services and facilities.

    That’s especially opposed to hypocrites like McCarthy with his phony expressions of concern for the “sanctity” of life following his advocacy of murder.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/nov/26/virginia-gov-glenn-youngkin-pushes-new-mental-heal/

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Now you have converted sophistry to inanity. Where will you go next to express your frustration and anger? Ausgezeichnet!!

      1. I’ll be satisfied by continuing to point out your hypocrisy by advocating murder then sanctimoniously wrapping yourself in the “sanctity of life”. It is the silliest of Jim McCarthy’s silly walks. Congrats.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          I must say I have rarely seen desperation and sophistry so professionally combined. Exemplary work. I’m delighted to be your imaginary foil if only to keep other readers safe. Your satisfaction is my most important function. Sooner or later you may realize you are not rational.

          1. Murder advocate. The silliest of Jim McCarthy’s silly walks. Keep up the silly walks.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            Isn’t it ironic when 30% of the comments are the author insulting everyone who doesn’t agree with their opinion. Someone with some intelligence would pause and take that in, Jimmy won’t and I don’t know if you saw. Deflected when I asked about cases he’s successful argued, so that would mean zero.

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          I must say I have rarely seen desperation and sophistry so professionally combined. Exemplary work. I’m delighted to be your imaginary foil if only to keep other readers safe. Your satisfaction is my most important function. Sooner or later you may realize you are not rational.

Leave a Reply