John Bailo wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > In any event, this particular shooter was generally disturbed in his mind and
> > he was advised to seek counselling.
>
> He was not merely advised to seek couselling.
>
> He was put into a mental hosital in 2005 where the dianosis said that he
> presented a danger to himself and to society.
>
> That should have resulted in a long term lock up.
>
> It didn't.
>
> And thus the result.
>
> It was the 3-D physical world of state bureaucracy that failed him, not
> the 2-D world of gaming.
So you're suggesting that the guy should have been banged up long term
because a doctor thought "he presented a danger to himself and to
society". Not because he had actually /done/ anything at that time.
Here in the UK, at the moment, the government is trying to get
legislation passed that will enable the authorities to lock up people
with "personality disorders", eg. paranoid schizophrenia, even if they
haven't actually done anything wrong. This will be over and beyond
the powers already afforded by the present laws. They want this new
law because, they think, it will allow them to take potential
murderers out of circulation. No doubt the Virginia incident will be
referred to as "justification" for the proposed law.
But the fact is, you'd have needed a fortune teller to predict that
this loser was going to do this. Locking people up because they
suffer from a disorder that /may/ lead them to commit violent acts is
ridiculous. Lots of such folk go through life never doing anything
wrong. And lots of "normal" people commit murder.
This massacre was awful. But using it as an excuse to
imprison/"hospitalise" innocent people will just compound the tragedy.
|
|
