Given that almost all of these people commit suicide before being apprehended, yep. It's rare that we have case like the Charleston church, and the Colorado movie theater, where we know the guy was seriously mentally ill, for his university psychiatrist was so concerned she broke doctor-patient confidentiality to report him, something you're only allowed to do if violence to self or others seems likely.
And, yes, "the authorities" dropped the ball, once he withdrew the security group of the university, which included that doctor, dropped it instead of referring it to local authorities. Something similar happened with the Virginia tech shooter; it's clear to me that if partially reversed the "reforms" in institutional commitments we'd have fewer of the mass shootings. Hmmm, another case like that, where the shooter just didn't get a chance to commit suicide, was of the Arizona congresswoman. From reports of his behavior at a local college, in times past he would have gotten serious attention, if not commitment.
If you support our current policies in both, you might say that freedom is enhanced by limiting commitments and maximizing gun ownership, but I suspect few but libertarians support both.
Yeah I think cases where the shooter is apprehended alive is the exception rather than the rule in these shootings. And as you rightly point out, in many of these cases there were big warning signs before the shooting actually happened. I don't know what the answer is as far institutionalization but it's something worth discussing.
The tough thing about these shootings is that there's really no punishment that can dissuade someone who wants to be killed during the commission of their crime.
I don't know what the answer is as far institutionalization but it's something worth discussing.
Yep, it's clearly not a general answer. It's "obvious" in the three cases I cited, but even in 20/20 hindsight, under e.g. the old rules, it does not seem like it would have happened with the shooters behind the Charleston, Sandy Hook, and Littleton, Colorado (high school) shootings, and a whole bunch more. Heck, the perpetrator of that incident of "workplace violence" at Fort Hood was himself a psychiatrist, and, not particularly mentally ill.
Given that almost all of these people commit suicide before being apprehended, yep. It's rare that we have case like the Charleston church, and the Colorado movie theater, where we know the guy was seriously mentally ill, for his university psychiatrist was so concerned she broke doctor-patient confidentiality to report him, something you're only allowed to do if violence to self or others seems likely.
And, yes, "the authorities" dropped the ball, once he withdrew the security group of the university, which included that doctor, dropped it instead of referring it to local authorities. Something similar happened with the Virginia tech shooter; it's clear to me that if partially reversed the "reforms" in institutional commitments we'd have fewer of the mass shootings. Hmmm, another case like that, where the shooter just didn't get a chance to commit suicide, was of the Arizona congresswoman. From reports of his behavior at a local college, in times past he would have gotten serious attention, if not commitment.
If you support our current policies in both, you might say that freedom is enhanced by limiting commitments and maximizing gun ownership, but I suspect few but libertarians support both.