DeSantis Wants To Reduce Mass Shootings by Locking More People in Mental Hospitals
It's unlikely to stop would-be shooters, but it certainly would allow more innocent people to be locked up with little recourse.

In the wake of a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, that killed 18 people, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has called for more involuntary institutionalization.
"We do need more institutionalization," DeSantis said during a CNN interview last week. "There are some people who are dangerous to society. A lot of them get put back on the streets. [It] will require more resources, but I think that that's appropriate."
DeSantis presented increased institutionalization as an alternative to nationalizing Florida's red flag law, which allows the state to seize guns owned by an individual experiencing a mental health crisis or who makes violent threats.
"I think [the red flag law] has been abused because people can just lodge a complaint. Sometimes they'll take somebody's firearms," DeSantis said.
The evidence is indeed dubious that red flag laws are effective at preventing mass shootings, and the statutes often leave individuals with little recourse when their firearms are taken.
"Predicting violence is much harder than advocates of this approach are usually willing to admit, and trying to overcome that challenge by erring on the side of issuing red flag orders inevitably means that many innocent people will lose their Second Amendment rights," wrote Reason's Jacob Sullum in 2022. "The very concept of red flags assumes that experts can reliably distinguish between harmless oddballs and future murderers. But there is little basis for that assumption."
Yet involuntary institutionalization isn't likely to help either. Indeed, making it easier to toss people into mental institutions against their will raises even greater concerns for due process.
Florida already makes it fairly easy to involuntarily institutionalize individuals. The state's Baker Act, passed in 1971, allows mentally ill individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others to be forced into a state hospital for up to 72 hours. While the law technically allows involuntary hospitalization only for those over 18, children as young as 6 have been forced into mental hospitals.
"A 2017 task force report on the involuntary referrals of children under Florida's Baker Act found that one-third of them were not necessary," according to a recent article by Kaitlin Gibbs of the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "Many children are Baker Acted more than once, which shows the initial Baker Act may not have successfully treated children with mental illness. At least thirty percent of all children Baker Acted will have a repeat Baker Act within five years."
Nor is throwing people into mental wards likely to reduce the number of mass shootings. As Ragy Girgis, a clinical psychiatrist at Columbia University, wrote in 2022, "Serious mental illness—specifically psychosis—is not a key factor in most mass shootings or other types of mass murder." And while 25 percent of mass shootings "are associated with non-psychotic psychiatric or neurological illnesses, including depression," he notes that "in most cases these conditions are incidental."
In the case of last week's murders in Maine, the shooter, 40-year-old Robert Card, was hospitalized during the summer. But officials say there is no evidence this hospitalization was involuntary. And Card's history of mental illness makes him unusual among other mass murderers.
"Arguably one of the best such reports on the topic, conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, found that only 25% of [mass shooters] had a diagnosed mental illness," wrote the psychiatrist John Rozel and the sociologist Jeffrey Swanson in January. "Although it is difficult to obtain precise data on the gun-prohibited status of every mass shooter, less than 5% of these individuals had a record of a gun-disqualifying mental health adjudication."
If DeSantis' plan were enacted, the likely result would be a rapid increase in the unnecessary institutionalization of mentally ill individuals—and a negligible impact on criminal violence. If taking people's guns is a violation of their rights, forcing them into a mental facility surely is too.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
While the law technically allows involuntary hospitalization only for those over 18, children as young as 6 have been forced into mental hospitals.
...
only 25% of [mass shooters] had a diagnosed mental illness
OK, now you’re not even trying.
the likely result would be a rapid increase in the unnecessary institutionalization of mentally ill individuals
You mean the way the number of people requiring transitioning-education in K-3 classes shot up like 30,000% the minute after the LGBTQIA community coined the phrase "Don't say gay!"?
"But I'm not gay - I'm a woman!"
I have to say that locking up the severely mentally ill seems like a great idea.
Just look at the streets of Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles where people are shrieking at the sky and walking around harassing the public.
It’s plain to anyone with eyes that these people are obviously severely mentally ill.
They are unable to care for themselves, living in the streets, taking drugs in public and are a clear danger to both them selves and others.
Locking up these people would be a great benefit to society and to these unfortunate people.
I have a hard time with arguments that say we should force people to do things for their own good. But in the case of severely mentally ill street homeless, it's hard to deny that it would likely be to their benefit and everyone else's. Allowing the more extreme homeless/drug scenes to continue is quite cruel and no kind of harm reduction.
Unless they can be proven to be a danger to themselves or to others, they can't be locked up. This is a really imporant protection for all of us lest some future dictator wannabe decides to start arbitrarily locking up political opponents.
Stalin locked his small time opponents up in mental institutions. (The major ones got show trials and were executed.) You really don't want to make it easier to lock people up who haven't been convicted of a crime.
When dealing with those suffering from a mental illness, there is no way to predict what they will do.
Arson, physical assaults, dangerous life choices such as drug use, threats to public safety and to themselves.
ok here is the deal.. red flag laws allow any one even if they dont know you to get you commited for 72 hours and they take your guns every time and its near impossible to get them back. this same thing about institutionalizing people happened with trump. they are saying if you see a shrink and they think you might be a danger in that way the shrink is required to act on it. they are not and did not say if you have mental illness you need to be locked away. red flag laws are flawed and allow for any one under the sun to get you locked away so it is guilt by accusation.
a friend of mine told me an old man he knew right down the road answered the door for meals on wheels and i guess he was asleep and got woke up. but the driver called and reported he seemed down and depressed and possibly suicidal and the came and carted him off and searched his home for guns and took them all even the replicas. he died a few years later trying to get them back still. where as what trump was saying is shrinks should be required to turn people in because the mass shooting that happened while he was in office. that guy had a fb page dedicated to a manfesto and his shrink also noted that and he seemed obsessed w3ith the idea and never did anything. im assuming desantis is on the same idea because he seems to like trump policy whether he like trump or not.
The free market solution was to outsource the red flag law to Amazon.com
The solution is capitalization, and devices large enough that you can operate a shift key with one finger while leaving the others free.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website…
Just open the link———————--------———>>> http://Www.SalaryOption1.Com
Red Flag Laws = thought crimes. Almost every human I have known said something that would make me want to take their guns. Absolutely zero of them used guns for any crime or suicide.
We now know which sockpuppet is Sean Strickland
https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/1719055400954212374?t=d3ibWXomhcJLR8o-UZe2ug&s=19
I had a good laugh at this while remembering that time I went to Houston for some technical training and they brought in a guy to tell us that if we weren’t on board with the company’s diversity and inclusion initiatives then we had no future at the company
[Link]
This is why LinkedIn can never succeed as a social media company. Nobody with a sound mind would ever post anything there. They should give up.
That article is hilarious. How strange these people are upset when they're the ones getting clubbed down.
who ever you are writing articles you use the word such too many times in the wrong place. it makes it difficult to read because its like a double negative.. its annoying having to read that part over again to make sure i read it correctly.
You're critiquing someone's writing? Seriously?
The irony is strong in that one...
https://twitter.com/FistedFoucault/status/1719027040332960049?t=9sPYICJGMh28RDAvsilZFw&s=19
The Hamas raid on Israel and the various pro-Palestinian (and sometimes pro-Hamas) demonstrations throughout the West have resulted in the right winning the debate re: mass immigration/multiculturalism.
However:
1. winning a debate means fuck all
2. the 'win' will be forgotten
im confused did hamas attack in maine?
Well, those terrorists are nutty enough to belong in an institution at least.
In other news, they found that young German tattoo artist's remains - the one from the music festival for peace that they paraded around Gaza.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12688801/Shani-Louk-decapitated-Hamas-Heartbreak-family-hoped-miracle-Israeli-president-reveals-sadistic-animals-murdered-young-festivalgoer-skull-found.html
Ah, the religion of peace.
Impossible, Misek swore she was fine.
"Fuck, all I said was that the Earth should be cleansed of the Jew plague and all of a sudden HR is giving me all kinds of shit! I thought hating white people was actually mandatory!"
"Well . . . I don't really consider Jews to be white people."
"NEITHER DO I!!!"
That skit was like Chemjeff and a new friend.
but red flag laws do get you sent to the booby hatch and not like in 51/50 where its court ordered. as in anyone can report you
Hence the fake name...
https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1719054356031426608?t=jttCSTDXyGlmruSH6Xzdvg&s=19
EXCLUSIVE: Venezuela's worst gangsters have crossed into the US illegally and are unleashing chaos in Dallas, Chicago and Miami - with fearful residents saying they've had tires slashed, windows shot out in retribution for reporting them to cops Daily Mail
[Link]
yes we need guns to protect ourselves from the illegal undocumented people invading our country. the left wants us to be fearful and not do anything to fight back, those people are illegal and no one has any record of them so they can do whatever they want and never get caught. thats why we should be strict on immigration and not just allow them to come and go as they please.
Damn that was funny. The tinfoil hat must be so low on your head that your vision is blocked and you can't see that >99% of mass shootings in this country are done by American citizens, not illegals who "can do whatever they want"
Are you enjoying sarcasmic’s new sock?
I saw nothing in that comment about “mass shootings”, Ana.
You had such a great point that you had to make it about something else, huh?
Haha. Dumbass.
Let's Go Brandon!
Enjoy the cultural diversity and inclusion!
But for God's sake, please don't demonize.
Nothing Lara Logan reports is reliable. Find a better source.
Granted, identifying the violently mentally ill from the merely mentally ill is difficult. But an easier sort than confiscating all guns. Currently we allow both groups to wander the streets. Asylums for the most ill and the violently mentally ill are not ideal but they are useful and, now that we've seen the trade-offs, necessary.
there are all differnt types of crazy and its not difficult to figure out. im agoraphobic with severe depression and ptsd that is unrelated to war so im crazy. but i would NEVER go do a mass shooting
Your posts here are nearly as violent. Adjust your dosage, dear.
Sarc’s just drunk. Again.
Serious question, is Ron DeSantis the ONLY person who's advocated for this?
No, we are seeing more calls for mental health prisons. The idea that we don't want to treat mental illness just warehouse it is silly. That does not stop people from advocating for it.
Can mentally defective people be “cured”?
What does your doctor say?
He said sarc is hopeless.
What does he say about your dominant personality?
It’s better than your submissive personality.
Sarc has so many personalities though, surely one of them is alright.
It’s not news when Democrats say things like that. It’s news because Republicans aren’t supposed to.
I know Jordan Neely is unavailable for comment.
When Newsome went for forced hospitalization here, the Reason articles were far less worried about the civil liberties.
Go figure.
Yeah, but that's a law law, this is just Ron DeSantis shooting his mouf off.
“Arguably one of the best such reports on the topic, conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, found that only 25% of [mass shooters] had a diagnosed mental illness,” wrote the psychiatrist John Rozel and the sociologist Jeffrey Swanson in January.
So here are some questions I'm required to ask...Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
*leans forward, squints* Convicted?
Yes, convicted.
*relaxes, sits back in chair* No, never convicted.
On this note… I’m too lazy to research what Mr. Swanson’s & Rozel’s thoughts are on something like, I dunno, gun control.
But let’s turn the prism a slightly different way and look through it again.
I have been told, and it is the current law of the land that says I’m not allowed to own an “assault weapon” or “High capacity magazine” on the idea that I *might* commit a mass shooting with it.
So, in fairness, one guy is saying, “Hey, let’s do something about mental illness” and another one is saying, “Fuck mental illness, let’s just assume EVERYONE is mentally ill and pass laws assuming that’s the case”.
good point
Or maybe the only practical solution is the 2nd Amendment and a *real* justice system that would permit murdering shooters be shot before their murdering intentions turn massive.
Which requires banning open carry.
My synagogue has an armed guard. If some Hamas supporter walks up to the synagogue carrying a rifle, because I live in New York, our armed guard can shoot the guy, no questions asked. The armed guard won't be prosecuted.
But if you are an open carry state, nothing can be done until the guy with the rifle actually opens fire. Then you get Gunfight at the OK Corral with everyone else with guns firing back. Mass carnage.
I am glad I live in New York. Our homicide rates are lower than most places.
Or maybe outside of your imaginary delusions founded in western Hollywood movies the mass shooter gets shot before shooting enough people to rack up a mass shooting.
Huh, in the big news of the day, Matthew Perry died.
The clot shot strikes again.
"Could I BE any more dead?"
...too soon.
if it's gonna be said eventually why not be first?
Pretty sure Gilbert Gottfried would tell you to wait a minute. Y'know, if he wasn't dead too.
His 9/11 jokes got him shit canned just about instantly.
try Anthony Jeselnik. but not while driving.
This push for mental health prison is merely the latest attempt to deflect the public from seeing guns access as a problem. Rather than have red flags and takes a person guns, we talk about taking away a person freedom altogether, which of course included their access to guns.
Here is somethings to consider, mental illness is more common than people think and some of it may be lifestyle driven. Mental illness can be a short-term problem or a lifelong one. Most mentally ill people live normal lives with their problem, same as people with other health problem. People do get depressed, some get over it, some commit suicide, some commit suicide in a dramatic fashion (suicide by cop or a mass shooter).
It is silly to say we are going to lock up mentally ill people because that could mean locking up everyone. It is not uncommon for people to experience depression especially after a difficult life event, like divorce, losing a job, large financial loss, etc. It will also not be easy to lock up people.
As for red flag laws, when people who know a person suggest that the person could be a danger to themselves or others, we need to take it seriously. That may mean taking their firearms for a period. If there are problems with the red flag laws then address them and not look to mental health prisons.
If guns are taken away, you have effectively locked up everyone.
So, punish all for the actions of few.
Got it.
How about making people who own gun free zones financially liable for damages should an attack happen there given that they limited the options for people to defend themselves?
“So, punish all for the actions of few. Got it.”
Moddle is very egalitarian in his fascism.
Would you being willing to trade have "gun free zone liability" and have "gun manufacturer liability"?
People not being allowed to have guns sure worked great in Israel.
Maybe Hamas couldn’t read the “no guns” signs?
You obviously have never been to Israel. Guns are everywhere!
It's obvious you haven't been to Israel, because no, they're not everywhere.
What would the manufacturer be liable for exactly?
Their product working?
They're already liable for defects.
But you're talking about making Ford liable for driver fault collisions.
So... no. I wouldn't make that "trade".
>What would the manufacturer be liable for exactly?
Exactly the same that Ford is liable for in regards to Darryl Brooks at that Wisconsin parade.
That Brooks decided to carry out that murderous act in the liberal state of Wisconsin means means he will be given an apology, a new free car and $10 million judgement for his anxiety and that all those whipipo he done hit and killed were all rayciss an shit an besides he be feelin threatened an shit an no mo black men be sent to prisons an shit for nuthin. Amens
"Would you being willing to trade have “gun free zone liability” and have “gun manufacturer liability”?"
Would you hold car manufacturers liable for crimes committed using their products illegally? How about nasal decongestant manufacturers for all of the meth?
Why should guns be treated differently?
This push for mental health prison is merely the latest attempt to deflect the public from seeing guns access as a problem.
No, it really isn't. It's really obviously a response to the homelessness crisis.
And allow me to point out that what you're engaging in here is a bona fide conspiracy theory in the name of making this about gun control.
It is silly to say we are going to lock up mentally ill people because that could mean locking up everyone.
It's silly to say anyone is suggesting locking up mentally ill people. The topic is whether people who are incapable of taking care of themselves, sleep in parks, and panhandle for a living should be put in facilities even if they prefer to continue breaking the law.
Indeed. I can't even fathom the mental gymnastics required to make this about gun control.
Considering that California was the first one to suggest this 'solution' says about everything that needs to be said on that front. California has 'gun controlled' for my entire life, and they only suggested this 'solution' when homelessness is clearly running roughshod over the major urban centers of California.
California is hardly alone in their 'homeless crisis', but they are the poster child for it.
How many mentally ill people walking the streets of L.A. self medication with meth, crack and whatever else they get their hands on. If they O.D. from the fent and tranq...oh well.
This push for mental health prison is merely the latest attempt to deflect the public from seeing guns access as a problem.
Nah, it's more an attempt to be seen to be doing something in reaction to a big news story. Everyone has heard the arguments about gun access and decided what they think. Anyone who has really thought about it isn't likely to change their minds because something bad just happened.
If we are going to have anything resembling personal freedom, people will sometimes do really terrible things. I think that's the main lesson we need to absorb rather than having this stupid debate every time some asshole goes and murders a bunch of people.
TL;DR but will eventually. Shit like this is going to come up repeatedly because:
(1) There's always clamor to prevent notorious events like these, which are of course extremely preventable: All you need do is not go and shoot a bunch of people. But people never look at the bright side: Think of the literal billions of people in the world who have never shot anyone, let alone a crowd. Isn't that amazing? But people are totally inured to the lack of tragedies; it's like not slaughtering people doesn't even exist because it doesn't get publicity. And you'd probably be insulted if one day the media reported that you (by name) did not commit some horrific crime, even though it's true.
(2) Afterward one can always see things about the shooter that would point to such an event in the future. But one can see the same things in virtually everyone.
(3) Occasionally there are egregious instances of failing to restrain known dangerous people — or even dangerous dogs, etc.
I think the best thing we can do is, next time there's a slaughter, come up with and publicize a good reason that person had for slaughtering those people, and then we can say it wasn't a crazy person, or even that the victims deserved it. So there won't be all this clamor for an unachievable goal.
The usual crowd wants to take everyone's guns away, which can't happen because there's no magic gun evaporation fairy, and DeSantis isn't going to suggest that path anyway, but nobody will accept the answer that there is no perfect safety either. So he's gotta say something. Well, that was "something".
If someone is mentally incompetent, they either need to become wards of their family or wards of the state; letting them roam the streets as if they were competent is not an option.
The problem is the definition of mentally incompetent. Is a slightly depressed smart person more mentally incompetent than a non-depressed dumb person? What level of paranoia makes you crazy?
who said that?
Are you talking about me?
That problem is little different from many other decisions organizations make about people day-to-day: credit risk, university admissions, hiring, etc. When people get it wrong, someone ends up paying a price.
In a libertarian society, this would likely be handled by a variety of certifying agencies and insurance companies. These companies make a determination and then bear the risk associated with that determination.
In the progressive social welfare state we live in, experts and administrators define cutoffs and criteria, and we leave the rest up to the legal system. In our system, pathologically low IQ, severe schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, any kind of criminal activity linked to mental illness, etc. would all be indicators of lack of mental competence.
I would say "slightly depressed" is more of a personality trait than a mental illness. It's not hard to separate functional people, perhaps with some problems of depression and anxiety from truly delusional or psychotic individuals. No need to rank order everyone for mental competence.
Fine, then let's define it. If you are living on the street, drug addicted, alcoholic, or mentally ill to the point where you literally are not taking care of yourself and are hurting others, you should be considered "mentally incompetent".
Simple enough?
Here's one: "I'm not crazy, I'm just a religious zealot, a warrior for the babies." Colorado Springs Pro Life shooter Robert Dear.
How about: "They got 4,000 babies get aborted every day. I guarantee you they had a lot of cancellations and I might have saved a thousand." Christian Pro-Life shooter Robert Dear, January 2016, after shooting 12 people at a women's clinic.
mass shootings happen in a free society where neither the people nor the guns are locked up. keep your head on a swivel and arm yourself.
Mass shootings happen even MORE in a non-free society. As-if the German Nazi's didn't completely demonstrate that fact.
^^
The Nazis actually relaxed Germany's gun laws.
The Nazi's were all about individual freedom?
Your brain is seriously dysfunctional.
And your evidence for this assertion is... what?
Yes, mentally ill people are "innocent". But if they are a potential danger to themselves or others, they need supervision. That can either come from family or from the state in a mental institution.
"And your evidence for this assertion is… what?"
Learn to read.
"Arguably one of the best such reports on the topic, conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, found that only 25% of [mass shooters] had a diagnosed mental illness," wrote the psychiatrist John Rozel and the sociologist Jeffrey Swanson in January. "Although it is difficult to obtain precise data on the gun-prohibited status of every mass shooter, less than 5% of these individuals had a record of a gun-disqualifying mental health adjudication."
If there were actual evidence that locking up people on the word of a psychiatrist stopped spree killings it would be all over the news. It isn't.
"Yes, mentally ill people are “innocent”. But if they are a potential danger to themselves or others, they need supervision."
And you need to prove that. You can't just lock people up because you are a coward who resorts to rights violations at the drop of a hat.
Learn to quote.
So then there is evidence that committing people with mental illnesses might reduce mass shootings. Thanks for quoting that for me.
Yes, you need to prove that someone is a potential danger to themselves or others. I'm glad we agree. Proving that does not require, however, proving any kind of criminal behavior or criminal intent; it merely requires showing that the person is incapable of functioning as a competent adult. And the consequence of that is not incarceration, but becoming a ward of your family or of the state.
Less than 25%? Compared to what percent of the general population has a severe mental illness?
Well, what percentage voted for Biden?
120%!
Indeed!
This is yet another example of politicians invoking magical incantations in a desperate attempt to appear to be doing something to solve problems that have no solutions. Mass shooters use guns so make sure that mass shooters don't have guns. Crazy people might do a mass shooting so make sure crazy people don't have guns. We need more money to spend on solving problems so raised taxes on the rich. We need more regulations to make sure bad guys to don't do bad guy stuff. It's never ending ...
Maybe that's because, unlike Libertarians, people actually WANT solutions to these problems? As for this particular problem, the last several high profile several mass shootings ALL involved the mentally ill. And this was known to the government. Yet they happened anyway.
If they were locked up beforehand, the victims would still be alive.
Dear Reason, let me introduce you to Venn Diagrams. And urban police reports.
Any urban cop can tell--or your own eyes if don't live in comfy suburb--that 1% of the mentally ill cause over 50% of the arrests. You don't get easier public policy slam dunks than this. When you see someone having a screaming match with a mailbox. Or stretched out on the uptown C Train covered in his own excrement... Know what? That is a non-functional human that needs to be taken out of free society. For the sake of our freedoms, and his well being.
This is not complicated, Reason. But thanks for muddying the waters and trying to make things worse for everyone.
Published the same year as Atlas Shrugged was "Drugs and the Mind" by Robert S. De Ropp. He stated "The greatest public health problem at the present time is mental ilness." Double-blind tests showed that most persons without mental illness did not enjoy the effects of heroin. This might explain why the mystically bewildered are so obsessed with morphine derivatives and also horrified by the prospect of psychedelics curing insanity along with addiction in many cases.
Letting all the crazies out, and re-defining mental health problems as "alternative lifestyles" (which has since been replaced with (self-)"identification") is in part how we wound up with all this mess in the first place.
That's probably true. There have been at least a dozen mass shootings since Lewiston - and mental health does not seem to be a relevant factor in them.
Those seem to have other common denominators - including one that Reason hates to discuss (recreational drug sales/use), and one that EVERYBODY hates to discuss because certain demographics start coming into play.
Just remember: don't demonize./ Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson
"mental health does not seem to be a relevant factor..."
"I'm not crazy, I'm just a religious zealot." Okaaaaay... scratch mental health off the list of possible problems. So, Demon Rum? Killer Weed? Demonic Possession by Andean plant leaves? Oratorical mass-hypnosis?
Perhaps De Santis has concluded that there's no political benefit in advocating for a measure of gun control but there's political advantage in advocating for committing people, because most people don't think that they will ever fall victim to an unnecessary commitment and they do think that locking up the crazies is a good idea.
(FWIW I doubt most people have any kind of informed opinion on mental illness - which is why insanity is such a difficult defence. IMO a jury will think, if the guy is that crazy we definitely want him locked up and the key thrown away.)
DeSaintis and the MAGA movement here--as in 1933 Germany--stand as proof that mysticism causes mental illness. Now mental illness is asserted as the the cause of religious fanatic berserkers running loose with guns. Does it follow that mysticism itself impels MAGA, Army Of God and Moslem jihad perps alike to run around shooting people?
Please tell me you don't believe that mental illness isn't a predominant cause of mass shootings. Please assure me that you're not that naive.
Is it not astronishing that not more attention is being paid to a tried and true method?
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/
(emphasis added)
Applies to crime in general. This 13-year-old had several carjacking arrests before trying to steal one from an armed Federal security officer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/10/30/carjacking-youth-dc-fatal-shootiing/
A number of years ago there was an attempted car jacking in D.C. Only the would be victim was an off duty FBI agent. It did not go well for the three would be car jackers.
"If DeSantis' plan were enacted, the likely result would be a rapid increase in the unnecessary institutionalization of mentally ill individuals"
I see a compromise. Lock up the mentally ill, but let them keep their guns.
Then they can all break out, murdering most of the staff in the process.
The problem is, thanks to the ACLU is that no one can be ehld anymore than 48-72 hours for observation and possible treatment. Which means they are given some meds( at taxpayers expense) and then returned to the streets. The outcomes all too often are the results of O.D. from fentayl and tranq ingested during drug use. That the person has committed a number of arsons, physical attacks or other anti-social behavior. Sometimes they are killed attempting to cross a busy highway which seems to occur in L.A.
Unless the family is willing to care for that person, the process will repeat itself until that person dies or is killed.
Don't forget, some of them don't just kill themselves, some kill others. The amount of completely random attacks in my drug addled part of Seattle is mind boggling. Everyone just crosses the streets when they hear one of the "Shouters" (The people who are aggressively yelling at the top of their lungs constantly until their vocal cords tear, who seem to also be the most likely to randomly attack).
Thanks to the ACLU? They have become Libertarian. Remember these folks have not been convicted of any crimes.
That shouldn't be the basis. The rest of us have the right to not be accosted or murdered trying to live either.
Questioning altruism is taboo. According to Alabama Mises intellectuals, the First Amendment protects mystical brainwashing of children and enslaving women. Criticism of mysticism producing Army Of God shooters here and Islamic Jihad shooters in Europe--is unconstitutional throughtcrime. Instead of SDI, the Second Amendment helps the Army of God silence critics of mystical brainwashing. The result? These 5000 male shooters plus one dead female shooter whose manifesto is censored from view.
WTF are you on about?
This didn't stop Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees, or Michael Myers
Sounds good to me.
As long as there is a judge in the process I'm fine with involuntary commitment. The alternative that we're seeing in our cities is far worse.
The perfect remains the enemy of the good. This is an example of that and why I cannot be a doctrinaire libertarian but instead remain a libertarian minded conservative.
We had this in the 80's, and it's why there were so few homeless. It should absolutely be reconsidered.
It was largely Reagan's budget cuts that resulted in the mental hospitals being closed and replaced with no treatment or services at all.
DeSantis will drop this idea when he realizes the high cost of this crazy idea. He isn't going to be willing to raise taxes to pay for it.
Don't forget the Democrats and their ACLU allies who helped get cases to the USSC that set the precedent that people have a right to not be institutionalized. Both parties are equally guilty of this, and the country isn't any better for it.
This is just a widespread pig white knight dream with flavors of minority report used against anyone and everyone.
In the main, when there are credible threats from loud mouthed angry whack jobs, we hear about them AFTERWARDS, and how law enforcement IGNORED all of it.
Government will take whatever new measures in the law or current measures already present they can and use them unfairly against the general public, and still miss the glaring blind red homocidal crazed mass murderer signs they missed before, in every single case out there. Every one of them. In many, the "FBI" had been "watching them". Well isn't that special, I guess, I don't know whom, maybe Satan was in on it with them.
I walk through Pioneer Square in Seattle nearly daily. The severe mental illness and brain addling addiction problem in the US is staggering. These folks are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. They aren't people who select folks to mug, they are people who have lost their minds so much they just randomly attack strangers.
It isn't some humane thing to let them live the way they live anymore than it is the humane thing to do, to let a vicious dog with severe brain damage roam the neighborhood because he wants to run free.
We need institutions for these folks. And sure, maybe have a nice law that says, If someone else mentally competent cares for them, then they exempt from institutionalization.
It doesn't seem very libertarian, but these folks are violating the non-aggression principal a hundred times a day. Not because they are intentionally harming others, but because their brain no longer works in a way that allows them to function in a safe manner. It would be legal and libertarian to prosecute them for every assault, pile on the felonies and misdemeanors, and put them in actual prisons. Or we could accept that they don't have the faculties that allow them to make rational choices, and instead of imprisoning them, placing them in an institution that will try to help their mental health issues.
I guess the real libertarian solution, when i think about it, is just everyone carry a concealed weapon and fatally shoot any deranged attacker and keep the criminal justice system or mental health professionals out of it. I'd honestly be OK with that solution, as long as Reason actually publicly advocates for it as their official stance, and not just pretend these people are harmless and not perpetuating harm on innocents daily.
"I walk through Pioneer Square in Seattle nearly daily. "
"the real libertarian solution, when i think about it, is just everyone carry a concealed weapon and fatally shoot any deranged attacker and keep the criminal justice system or mental health professionals out of it."
If you had been carrying a weapon to kill these Pioneer Park people with mental problems who inconvenience you, how many would you have shot? Remember, under your 'libertarian solution' you can kill the mentally ill with impunity.
Not at all. But you can kill people who attack you, just like you can in non-libertarian societies.
In a libertarian society, the concept of a "public space" like Pioneer Square doesn't exist. In a libertarian society, any space you would want to be would be private and most of those private spaces would require private liability insurance of some form, and part of obtaining that would be establishing that you are mentally sound and financially responsible.
There would still be spaces like Slab City, but they would then establish their own rules for dealing with such issues.
Good Lord, I can only imagine what it costs to have to keep replacing your shoes.
Sounds like PeeOnear Square. Imagine what the smell is like. Lordy!
Indeed. One would have to replace shoes after only a week.
The only problem is....all the shoe stores have been looted.
What we really need is gibbetting and mass deportations to Europe.