Obama continues to push only mental illness solutions at Fort Hood memorial

Obama's talk at the April 9th memorial at Fort Hood again emphasized only mental illness.
In our open society, in advanced bases like this, we can never eliminate every risk, but as a nation, we can do more to help counsel those with mental health issues, to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are having such deep difficulties. As a military, we must continue to do everything in our power to secure our facilities and spare others this pain. . . .
The question is: what happens if you can't accurately identify all the threats due to mental illness?  What happens if the threat is something other than mental illness?


  1. It's worth noting the old communist ploy of identifying one's enemies as mentally ill and then locking them up.

    Additionally, it is also worth noting that most of these shooters were in compliance with their doctor and taking medication at least for some time before the shooting. The possibility that the drugs do more harm than good must be explored, yet we get a very pro-psychiatry message. Perhaps these drugs, which are designed to interfere with emotions, also interfere with the sort of emotions that keep us from running around shooting people indiscriminately?

  2. I think a rather more serious problem with "mental illness solutions" is demonstrated by the original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in which homosexuality was clearly identified as a sociopathic mental disorder.

    So, OK, no guns for gay people then, because they are 'mentally ill'.

    "Oh, but gay people aren't crazy" (anymore). No, now we have other things in the DSM (V now, if you keep track as they go by) that identify people as 'mentally ill'.

    What a nice, fat club we can use to deprive otherwise law abiding people of their civil rights with.

    And, hey, while we're at it, black teen males have a high violent crime rate. It isn't anywhere near 50%, but it isn't like 50% of diagnosed psychopaths are violent criminals either. Now we can deprive them of their civil rights too.

    In fact, with this precedent we can derive pretty much anyone of his civil rights, on basically no grounds whatsoever.

  3. And that's exactly what they want Shawn. They want the ability to deny 2nd amendment rights to people for BS reasons like the meds you are on, ptsd, and depression. They get that and it will hit about 50% of gun owners while they can say it's not targeting the amendment it's a "mental health issue"