And bo_sox, what krellin said. Seriously.

"Fact is, Bo, they are breaking plots all the time, but you DON'T TALK ABOUT IT because it will tip their hand to related organizations that they may be comprimised." (sic)

FBI/CIA/NSA don't give out details about plots because they can't show their hand, especially if they have leaks or insiders who may have unique information or a high ranking position inside an organization. They don't want those information sources compromised. The only "threats" you'll hear about are generally very vague and fairly obvious - heightened security at the Obama inauguration, for example, when there are 1,000,000+ people at the Lincoln Memorial - doesn't really take much intelligence to consider that venue vulnerable to attack, but I'm sure in that case the FBI/CIA can drop hints of a general "threat" that accomplish a lot in terms of thwarting potential terrorists with very little extra effort on the FBI's part.

@steephie ... I was talking about 9/11/13, not 9/11/01.

And to the rest, fair point.

"I was talking about 9/11/13"

Again..HOW DO YOU KNOW? Why do you make a statement like "There were absoutely zero, none, zip, nadda plots against the US on 9-11-13"? What a *ridiculous* statement to make.

You realize some asshole blew up people in Boston a few months back? Nutjob just shot up the Navy Yard?

Terrorism is alive and well, my friend, and unfortunately it is going small-time...

In both these cases the government HAD DATA to stop these guys and just missed for whatever reason. So, the idea that you can claim there were zero plots on 9-11-13 is just stooooo-pid....Sorry.

The issue at the Washington Navy Yard is mental illness not gun control. When will the United States pass laws that prevents the dangerously and criminally mentally ill from slaughtering the rest of us? A convict on parole has to submit to their premises being searched without warning and without warrant. Individuals diagnosed with dangerous mental illness should get subjected to the same type of surveillance.
The Arizona congressional shooter-mentally ill. The Connecticut school shooter-mentally ill. The Colorado theater shooter-mentally ill. The Virginia Tech shooter-mentally ill. The Washington Navy Yard shooter-mentally ill.

The issue is mental illness.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the problem is mental illness, the idea of stripping the rights of the mentally ill away en masse is a dangerous path to start on. Especially considering that either a quarter or a half of Americans have some kind of mental illness according to the DSM - and as new mental illnesses are "discovered" every year, the set of mentally ill Americans is constantly expanding. I'm sure if we tried hard enough, we could get a psychiatrist to declare *anyone* mentally ill and designate them second-class citizens who don't have the same rights as the steadily shrinking pool of "normal" people.

And what happens when an undiagnosed mentally ill person shoots a whole bunch of people? I can guarantee you that mandatory mental illness screenings and proactive behavioral monitoring will be the talk of the political class. Say the wrong thing on Facebook, a text, an email, publicly criticize official explanations for current (and past) events, get into a fight with a coworker or relative, joke about hearing voices, and you will be branded "mentally ill" and stripped of many of your rights. The appeal process (if there even is one) will be completely stacked against you, since there there would be little or no incentive for the system to declare anyone sane (just as IRS administrative judges have no incentive to decide in favor of a taxpayer in IRS administrative courts). Brave New World, here we come...

The mentally ill that plan and carry out slaughters have no rights. Convicts on parole don't have rights. When you get diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness you lose your right to plan slaughters and carry them out. So no, the dangerously mentally ill do not get full and equal citizenship equal to that possessed by sane human beings who do not commit mass murder.

Taking away military clearance to the Navy Yard isn't taking away a right, Tolstoy, it's taking away a very, very selective and exclusive privilege.

"When you get diagnosed with a dangerous mental illness you lose your right to plan slaughters and carry them out."

There are about 3 million schizophrenics in America. 2,999,998 did not commit any mass shootings this year. Establishing secondary and tertiary tiers of citizenship/legal rights for the socially undesirable has been tried many times before, and most acknowledge that the end results were (and still are) not ideal. Men with high testosterone levels are more likely to commit crime than men with low testosterone levels; should we force all men to submit to blood testing and take away the rights of those with levels higher than a certain arbitrary point?

"Convicts on parole don't have rights."

Actually, depending on the terms of their parole, they do. And parole terms or no, you can't just round up parolees and throw them back into prison because as a population they are more likely to commit a crime, for instance.

"Taking away military clearance to the Navy Yard isn't taking away a right, Tolstoy, it's taking away a very, very selective and exclusive privilege."

I agree. But that's not what Emac is talking about.

"Individuals diagnosed with dangerous mental illness should get subjected to the same type of surveillance."

But who defines what is dangerously mentally ill? If a person has mild bouts of depression and talks to a therapist, they could be flagged as mentally ill and that could be as much as half of America or more.

"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised." - Marilyn Manson

Violence of every kind has declined very precipitously over the last couple decades in the US and elsewhere. Cf. Steven Pinker's most recent book, etc.

+1000 BENJORMUNGND

Yes, violent crime is down and/or no worse than it has ever been, the weather is NO WORSE than before, politicians are just as corrupt now as they were in Biblical times, etc...yes, NOTHING IS NEW under the sun...

Violence....anyone here ever read SHAKESPEAR??? Obiiiiii??? Fill us in, Obi...what are the predominant themes of these wonderous ancient works of literature? Might it be....Violence, Sex (including underage sex, keepin' it in the family sex, etc), even drugs, probably, or at least mind-altering experiences...

Yes..all the violence the media likes to pretend is somehow new....give me a f*ing break...

@Draug ... I have mild bouts of depression (used to be much, much worse) and talk to a therapist every now and again. I'd assume most soldiers have something like that. The line is unclear, and that'd be a decision for the higher-ups, but when you are "hearing voices" *and* were arrested for firing a gun in an apartment just a few years back, you should not have military clearance.

Currently, in most states only people who have been civilly committed and felons are banned from purchases weapons from licensed dealers. At gun shows anyone can buy guns, doesn't matter how mentally ill you are or how many felonies you have committed. This is thank to the tireless efforts of the NRA..

But, in this case the shooter was never committed. He had every right to own a gun by US (and Canadian) law.

Some people have suggested that increased mental health spending is the answer. Sadly this is not a solution to all mentally unbalanced killers. Even with all the Medicaid dollars in the world, if someone doesn't want mental health drugs and counseling, they don't have to accept it unless they are committed. Because we live in a libertarian leaning country, it is very hard to get committed.

Some people think arming every man, woman and child is a solution, but the killing in this case proves that is not a solution.

btw the vast majority of people who hear voices and have paranoid delusion, do NOT kill. The murder rate among schizophrenics is not significantly higher than the gen pop.

Tolstoy, you don't seem to understand mental illness. You say there are 3 million schizophrenics in America, but there is not one singular type of schizophrenia. The only type of schizophrenia associated with mass murder is paranoid schizophrenia. Please let me know of cases where catatonic, disorganized, residual, or undifferentiated schizos committed mass murder.
Every single, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic in the United States should have their residence subject to search without a warrant and without notice in the exact same manner applied to felons on parole. They can still work, travel, etc as other do. They just can't sit around in their paranoid delusions planning slaughters as the mass murderers at the Colorado theater, the Virginia Tech Campus, the Newtown elementary school, the Arizona congressional shooting, and the Navy Yard did. Once you get diagnosed with as a paranoid schizo you lose your right to privacy in your residence. Sorry, but you are a nutjob and possess the real possibility to do harm to other human beings.

Not "you" as in you Tolstoy. "You" as in a paranoid schizo.

Dirge-Aaron Alexis, James Holmes, John Zawahri, Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, and Seung-Hui Cho all paranoid schizos.

Planet X - where gun control works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE&list=PLoO6eym0L0F3mJ7qk4ogi8loeiMH8Osrj

Discuss

Emac - yes I agree they were all having paranoid delusions. I certainly wasn't arguing against it. I'm just saying the mental health system is pretty limited in its ability to intervene unless the person is seeking help OR broadcasting their intent to do harm. And a lot rides on the individual skill of professionals to interpret signs of risk and act accordingly.

And, incidentally in the new diagnostic manual DSM-5, there is now only one type of schizophrenia, they dropped the sub types.

Dirge, I just gave an excellent way to monitor paranoid schizophrenics. Unscheduled, warrantless searches of their residence. This is all the mental health system needs to do. Once diagnosed they this policy should apply to them all. Paranoid schizos are dangerous and should be treated as such.

And Emac, yes a lot of spectacular mass murders have been committed by sick individuals with paranoid delusions.

But people have to also understand the population of persons who experience these type of delusions is very very large. Something like one in every hundred persons.

Most people having delusions don't go commit murder of any kind.

Nudge-England has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrial world and its civilian population is virtually disarmed. It also has seen a study increase every year over the last decade of gun related violence. Another example of the irrefutable fact that gun control laws disarm law abiding citizens not criminals.

"Unscheduled, warrantless searches of their residence."

That's not a real option legally, constitutionally, ethically nor do the resources exist for it to happen even if it was viable.

"Every single, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic in the United States should have their residence subject to search without a warrant and without notice in the exact same manner applied to felons on parole"

no they shouldn't. They have committed no crime and are guilty of nothing but a mental illness they have no control over. And even felons stop dealing with that bullshit once their parole ends so that is a fallacious argument. It isn't that felons are subject to this. Only parolees are.

Dirge, all you have to do to eliminate the danger is search their premises. The population of convicted felons on parole is larger and we give police the right to search their premises without warning or warrant. It is not a logistical problem at all to have police search the premises of paranoid schizos.
So institute the policy and see what the results are. The paranoid schizos already think that someone is out to get them. They already think people are entering their residence so really do it won't change their reality (or total lack of it) one bit.

Yes they should. Paranoid schizos should be declared an imminent threat and treated as such. Whenever their paranoid schizoid state ends they can be treated like felons no longer on parole. By the way convicted felons lose rights permanently FYI. I know that fact didn't fit well with your misrepresentation of reality.

Many convicted felons permanently lose the right to vote, serve in public office, serve on a jury, possess a firearm, access to government grants, government loans, government contracts, access to government funded public housing and government education funding. So felons lose right permanently. I'm not asking that paranoid schizos lose these rights. Simply that they get subjected to warrantless searches of their residence at any time.

While we are on the subject of fallacious arguments, the definition of a fallacious argument is the one that claims that actions by paranoid schizos provide a basis for disarming law abiding, registered gun owners who do not aren't paranoid schizos. The massacres at Newtown, the navy yard, Virginia Tech, Santa Monica college, the Arizona congressional event, and the Colorado theater have a common thread, armed paranoid schizos, and nothing to do with sane, registered law abiding gun owners.

Emac, here's an idea:

Read the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you can make an argument *after* reading that, do so.