The Very Rev. Nicholas Knisely, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Phoenix, said during his sermon Jan. 9 that “if we are to stand against the flames of violence and hatred that even now are licking at the edges of our state, we are going to have to live into our vocation as members of the Body of Christ”
“We are going to have create humanizing relationships with each other that will make it impossible to objectify our sister and brother,” he said. “We are going to have to make our city, our state and our country into our neighborhood. We must build walls of love with each one of us serving as a brick in that wall. And those walls will stand against the flames.”
I am tired of hearing the climate of hate being the cause of this murderer’s madness. There is absolutely no evidence for this claim. Any criticism of the progressive agenda is hateful by definition.
As has been commented before, focusing on politics pushes under the rug the question of what we will do to recognize and get help for mentally ill people in our communities who are a danger to themselves and others. But, if that’s what the chattering class wants to chatter about that’s all we’re going to hear.
#2, thank you very much for that comment. I keep going to the same place.
“We are going to have create humanizing relationships with each other that will make it impossible to objectify our sister and brother,” he(the Dean) said.”
Let me know your success rate on that score with those who are possibly paranoid schizophrenics.
Would that clergy and other public figures could spend some time visiting psychiatric facilities before they make such dingbat statements. “Creating ‘humanizing relationships'”?!! Very sad, but with some people you are lucky if they even know where they are, let alone understand the concept of “relationship” with others. And said “affliction” can have NOTHING to do with their surrounding environment.
Isn’t this situation the classic Catch-22. I saw a news story that seemed to explain quite well the shooter’s growing mental illness through his teen years. Several people interviewed commented about his problems, his drug use and his growing lack of contact with reality. I believe one even pondered about what could have been done. That is a good question, what could have been done? As far as I know, this young man had exhibited many signs of mental instability, yet he had never been dangerous or cause harm to anyone. Attempts may have been made to get him help, but short of him exhibiting a clear cut danger to himself or to other people, what could anyone have done?
Some will ring their hands and speak of how better relationships will help us to stop objectifying people, whatever that means. The fact of the matter is that evil exists in the world. There are sick and misguided people who do sick and misguided things AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP THEM! Some of the very people who are now screaming for more gun control and less violence are the same people who would have opposed any effort to take action against this boy because that action might have intruded on his civil rights. You can’t have it both ways.
The shooting in Arizona is an absolute tragedy. It may or may not have been preventable. It will not be the last time that a tragedy like this will happen. It is only with God’s help and His Grace that we can try to put this into perspective and move forward trusting that The Father will be there to help us pick up the pieces the next time that Evil shows its ugly face to the world.
Fr. Michael+
Perhaps slightly off topic – When someone speaks or writes to me I try to understand what is being said or written.
“We are going to have create humanizing relationships with each other that will make it impossible to objectify our sister and brother,” he said. “We are going to have to make our city, our state and our country into our neighborhood. We must build walls of love with each one of us serving as a brick in that wall. And those walls will stand against the flames.”
I assume anyone I meet is already human.
How does one turn a country into a neighborhood?
Wall of love? Flames?
I have spoken English for over 60 years. The only conclusion I can draw from the quoted paragraph is that the writer is highly emotional and short on logic. Am willing to be corrected.
Of course NPR was savaging Sara Palin. How dare she defend herself and not fall down on her knees admitting her culpability and wearing sack cloth and ashes, and asking forgiveness of the liberal/progressives for even existing.
Well, one thing that could have been done was to make it illegal to sell clips that carry 33 rounds. Loughner had a 33 round clip and he fired all of them. That’s how one guy can hit 18 people in a matter of seconds and kill 6 of them. An attempt was made to restrict 33 round clips but vigorous lobbying by the NRA defeated it.
Glock’s seem to be the weapon of choices for all the paranoid schizophrenics who are looking to create the largest blood bath in the shortest amount of time. This was also the weapon used by Virginia Tech shooter who mangaed to hit 33 people.
The fact that the Glock is lightweight and can fire 33 rounds without loading is promoted on the Glock site as the big advantage of its guns — giving it “superior firepower.”
There will always be paranoid schizophrenics. But there do not have to be semiautomatics with the power to bring down a herd of charging buffaloes sold to anybody who can swipe a credit card. But there always will be, because guns are a religion in the U.S. and any suggestion that guns, yes, actually ARE the problem is regarded as total heresy.
Well said, Catholic mom. There is no legitimate need for a 33 round clip.
I would say that people and mental illness are more of a problem than guns, but, yes, I’d fully agree that there is no need for a 33 round clip to be legal or obtainable by the general public.
Why is there no need? Who defines what the legitimate limit of a firearms detachable magazine? Or magazine capacity should be? Who are you to say?
7, 8, 9 Making a product illegal does not, sadly, take it off the market.
Recently read an article, can’t remember where, indicating that in a huge percentage of crimes involving the use of firearms, those firearms used had NOT been lawfully acquired.
See what I mean? It’s a religion. I knew there’d be an outraged response within 15 minutes of my posting. And note that I didn’t even say that GLOCKS should be illegal — just that there is no legitimate non-military/police need for a 33 round clip.
But see, every human being in the United States has the God-given right to arm themselves with any weapon ever made. If there were nuclear pistols the Br. Michaels of the world would be asking who gives anyone the right to make them illegal. Then, when some nut job takes out 1,000 people with one, the Br. Michael’s of the world will tell you that “nuclear pistols don’t kill people — paranoid schizophrenics kill people.” Yeah — paranoid schizophrenics armed with nuclear pistols.
#’s 10 and 12–Somehow I think both of you are posturing. I bet, as usual, there is a legitimate middle ground. I don’t want to sound maudlin, but when I heard it was a Glock, my first question was how did he kill anybody? Haven’t all of us seen the police videos where some officer takes 9 shots at a suspect and either misses or doesn’t seriously harm the perpetrator? I actually assumed he had an Uzi (which is illegal in the US, but still obtainable, especially that close to the Mexican border). I would have to agree that a 33 round magazine is a bit excessive. Of course, this was Tuscon, which the Ferderal government, and apparently the local sheriff decline to protect. #5–I’m with you. That was classic Episcospeak.
#11, no doubt criminals have ways to obtain guns illegally. But a “huge percentage” (to use your figure) of crimes committed by paranoid schizophrenics are committed with legally purchased guns for the simple reason that most of them don’t have the mental wherewithall to figure out how to obtain a gun illegally. Nor do they need to since they are not worried about the gun being “traced” to them. Nor are they worried about anything else. But hey, using the same logic, why not make heroin and cocaine legal too? Let’s face it, the criminals are always going to know where to get it. Why not just sell it right at Walmarts?? Slap a nice tax on it and we can reduce property taxes at the same time.
#14–I hope you don’t live in California.
#14 Catholic Mom, I note the passion of your response.
“But hey, using the same logic, why not make heroin and cocaine legal too?” The libertarian part of me would agree. However my eldest nephew died 2 years ago from a particularly nasty cancer resultant from heroin use in his youth. I maintain there can be a responsible use of guns (Tuesday I had elk burger for lunch.) but not a responsible non-medical use of heroin.
Bottom line- IF we could identify and respond with mandatory intervention with those suffering from serious mental illness BEFORE that person does something dangerous to himself or others, then people like this young man couldn’t legally obtain a firearm, with or without a clip holding 33 bullets. As things stand now, the authorities cannot intervene until something illegal has occurred. That is nuts. This guy’s qualifying illegal action permitting authorities a mandatory involuntary intervention resulted in the shooting of 20 persons, including 6 deaths. That’s a little late for action. That is the real issue facing us, not what weapons are available legally.
There is a responsible medical use of morphine and there is an illegal use of morphine. That is why the sale of morphine is highly restricted. There is a responsible use of arsenic and there is an illegal use of arsenic. That is why the sale of arsenic is highly restricted. There is a responsible use of guns and there is an illegal use of guns. That’s why every U.S. citizen has the God-given right to buy any gun they want.
#13 — why would you be surprised that he could kill 6 people with a Glock? Seung-Hui Cho killed 33 people with a Glock and a little old .22 caliber.
[blockquote]#‘s 10 and 12—Somehow I think both of you are posturing. I bet, as usual, there is a legitimate middle ground..[/blockquote]
I bet you are wrong. Heck we can’t even agree someone should not be allowed to carry a gun within a 1000 feet of a Congressman without his consent. As Congressman Franks said, I wish one more person had possessed a fire arm in Tucson on Saturday. Presumably, he meant someone could have whip out their gun and shot the killer. Of course if you are in a crowd and someone starts firing a gun at a public official the smart thing to do is pull out your gun and start shooting. Nothing could go wrong there.
[blockquote]Of course, this was Tuscon, which the Federal government, and apparently the local sheriff decline to protect.[/blockquote]
Are you suggesting the sheriff should be providing police protection for every public official in Tucson from the time he leaves his house in the morning until the time he returns home at night? What about people who break into their homes. Perhaps you are suggesting 24 hour police protection for public officials. This will result in a significant taxpayer expense since that would require at least three full time police officers for each elected official. It has not been the policy in the past to provide police protection for Congressmen unless they have received a credible threat or requested it. I don’t see how you can fault the Sheriff for following that policy.
Elk burgers are good, and so is Elk chili.
I’m not outraged, and I don’t agree with the public sale of 33-round clips, not to mention certain weapons. Christianity is my religion, not guns. I just happen to believe that guns have their uses; so, as far as gun control goes, I fall somewhere in the middle on the political spectrum. And it is sadly true that it is probably not hard to obtain firearms illegally; that is not to say that certain firearms or ammunition should not be illegal.
“But see, every human being in the United States has the God-given right to arm themselves with any weapon ever made”.
Now that seems a little outrageous, and not all paranoid schizophrenics kill people. Most people with mental illness have no desire to harm themselves or others. But, unfortunately it seems the few that do can occasionally go WAY over the top.
The issue is not solely guns. I’ve seen two similar case studies(just off the top of my head, and one I’ve already linked here) where the killers(both out of their minds) had knives as their weapons of choice–one victim an innocent priest who had been trying to help the troublesome(mental) situation in his parish, and one actually a young girl who was simply standing in line on a street–her(sadly) successful assailant believed(with her only the age of 9 or so) that she was some form of Jezebel.
Right — it’s just a lot harder for nut cases with knives to kill 6 people (or 33 people) in a few minutes. It’s actually a lot harder for them to kill even one person since they have to be at point blank range. It’s a lot easier to disarm them too.
The fact that a mentally ill person can gain easy access to weapons is appalling. So is the fact that mental health care in this country leaves much to be desired. Doesn’t it concern anyone that so many of our violent crimes are committed by poorly monitored schizophrenics and others with serious mental illness?
We had a capital case in Texas involving a schizphrenic who had been previously incarcerated for a crime. He served his time, was released, was poorly monitored, went off his meds, and raped and killed two women. We are putting to death people with IQs of 65 and no impulse control plus others with known psychosis and we are putting the lives of innocent people at risk as we only address the problem after they are convicted of violent crimes.
We need more mental health institutions and stronger laws that permit longer, involuntary commitments for those psychotics who clearly can’t be managed on an out-patient basis.
As for Sarah Palin, I’m sorry but putting graphics on a website that include crosshairs and gun-related rhetoric is trashy and should not be defended. Did she cause the incident? No. But it would be helpful if she and others in the political spotlight would elevate discussion and rational debate rather than utilize cheap, classless theatrics. I honestly don’t understand why this twit commands any sort of following.
I seem to recall a time (in the early 70s?) when mentally ill people could be hospitalized WITHOUT their consent if they indeed presented even the possibility of injury to themselves and others. Then we were told that they were humans, too, and should NOT be hospitalized but cared for in their home communities. They were encouraged in self-care, that is, to be responsible for their own medications and life. Well, I taught in a community college for many years and saw more and more of our students exhibiting serious symptoms of serious mental illness but they were off limits for any sort of confinement for their own good or the good of the college. It is crazy (!) to let folks who can’t cope with reality define their own need for psychotropic type drugs.
But that was the culture of those who want each person to be able to “do his own thing.” Now we hear cries of “we need to help them.” Is that a hands off policy?
Within 24 hours after the Tucson shootings, it was already the subject of a sermon. The Revd. Astrid Joy Storm, vicar of the Episcopal Church St Nicholas-on-the-Hudson (New Hamburg, NY) had this to say –
“And we don’t yet know what will be born of the tragedy of yesterday’s shooting, but something. Already, the news is teeming with pieces about the terrible state of our political discourse in this country. Prominent people from talk show hosts to politicians are being called out on their violent language against their opponents, and, I hope, people are swearing off such fear-mongers … “
Actually, as the vitriol hurled at Sarah Palin increases, I am determined to vote for her if she runs. Just look at the bile at “Palin Death Threats, Compiled” on the middle of the page here: http://www.nationalreview.com/ And then there is Malkin’s catalogue http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/ Be sure to check out the Democratic targets on Republicans.
#18–Beacuse I am. They are essentially worthless in what they are designed to do–police work. I think your initial point about the 33 rouynd magazine is right on point. He couldn’t have done this without lots of bullets in a very short time. I don’t own a gun, but if I did it would either be an M 1911 Colt .45 or a larger caliber revolver. Actually the reason I don’t own a gun is because in my 21 years of military service I got sick and tired of cleaning the blasted things! I have a bayonet and K-bar in my bedside table, though. #19–According to reports they were numerous complaints and reports about the shooter of which the sheriff’s department was aware and chose to do nothing. I wasn’t suggesting special treatment for Congressmen. If you knew me, you would know I believe precisely the opposite. Also, there was a guy there with a gun, who had the good sense not to start shooting into a crowd. Whille he had his weapon drawn, he subdued the shooter and retrieved the murder weapon.
There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous individuals.
．Teatime2, the root of the problem in not recent conservative political rhetoric. Rather, it
．is our indiscriminate and aggresive use
．of BULLET points!
In Australia, they don’t have near the problem of random gun violence as we do in the US and do you know what they call them? DOT points!!! BULLET Points have been instilling a culture of violence in this country for the past 30 years of their widespread use on word processors. That’s right. Microsoft Word is to blame for all these shootings (rant, foam, grunt, pant) not that newby Palin.
．Take that.
．And that.
．Why I bet you are feeling more uncontrollably violent just for reading this.
(Teatime2 — I know you weren’t saying more than you said about Palin’s rhetoric on her website. It was just helpful to make my ridiculous point about bullet points that others are making about Palin’s comments like “re-load” or “take aim”. Honestly, Palin’s metaphors fit well with the people who enjoy hunting as a sport — which is of course one of her main consituencies.)
Do you recall that between 1962 and 1980 there were more assassinations and attempts–JFK. Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, George Wallace, President Reagan to name a few–than have been lately? What was the political “noise” like then?
“It’s a lot easier to disarm them too”.
You’d be shocked at the superhuman strength of some people under the influence of drink, drugs, and/or mental illness.
“The Revd. Astrid Joy Storm, vicar of the Episcopal Church St Nicholas-on-the-Hudson (New Hamburg, NY) had this to say –
“And we don’t yet know what will be born of the tragedy of yesterday’s shooting, but something. Already, the news is teeming with pieces about the terrible state of our political discourse in this country. Prominent people from talk show hosts to politicians are being called out on their violent language against their opponents, and, I hope, people are swearing off such fear-mongers … â€
I don’t have the context of the rest of this sermon but this snippet, if it’s going where I think it’s going, is complete and utter BS. I agree with George Will–the armchair sociologists simply need to STHU.
“I seem to recall a time (in the early 70s?) when mentally ill people could be hospitalized WITHOUT their consent if they indeed presented even the possibility of injury to themselves and others… It is crazy (!) to let folks who can’t cope with reality define their own need for psychotropic type drugs”.
You’ve got that right, and the problem, as you well know, is also that they can’t DETERMINE reality, let alone cope with it.
Would that someone could have forced AT LEAST an evaluation on that gunman.
But some of it depends on the laws of the state. I once saw a wonderful friend of mine trying to help her neighbor in testifying at the involuntary commitment trial of his wife. It’s true that psychosis is like being a little pregnant, basically you are or you are not, but let’s just say that the wife was just this side of psychosis. One must remember that mental illness is not necessarily inversely proportional to articulate intelligence at all–this wife managed to convince the judge that everyone else testifying was just “picking on her”, and he released her on her own recognizance to her home, where she continued to torment her husband, children, and neighbors–eventually the husband just packed everything up, including the children, and left–other than that, I never heard the outcome of that story but the woman was in serious need of at least lithium or equivalent(ie, based on what the husband told my friend, it was probably a bipolar near-psychosis, or “there”).
To personally share, which I have no problem doing(if we don’t get comfortable with this, stigma will NEVER get better and blocked access to care will remain to the detriment of society), years ago I had some mental side effects from a medication wrongly prescribed by my blockheaded, agenda-driven internist at the time–when I was trying to recover and figure out what happened, I was stunned and sad to see the number of people(including some family members) who just had no compassion, looked past me, didn’t want to discuss it, and/or avoided me or walked right on by. I think I tried to be caring towards people before that incident, but now I try even harder to love/help the afflicted/marginalized. One never knows how hard it is until one is on the receiving end of apathy, stares, and meanness.
But, if I heard a young man ask in a public forum, “How can government function if words have no meaning?” that would set off warning bells in my health-care trained head. I’m not the proper diagnostician in such cases, but that sounds like dissociative thought to me; the first half of the question truly has nothing to do with the other half. And allegedly this guy did/said much worse, with nothing done about it–the time to act would have been before he turned 18, but it’s my understanding(which could be wrong) that parental support was not part of his picture. It’s truly awful…I’d especially look carefully at the college-age people(~18-30) as that is primetime for the development of bipolar or schizophrenic symptoms.
#29 — She had a graphic on her site that had crosshairs on particular states/congressional names. I can’t point you to it because she apparently removed it. We’re not talking about dots of ink that share a name with ammunition. And, yes, I call that trashy and juvenile.
I have little respect and no love for Pelosi, but if she did something similar, Glenn Beck and the gang would be screaming to high Heaven.
In our last gubernatorial race, our incumbent refused to have even one debate with his challenger and he gave very few formal, substantive interviews to media outlets, as well. It was all just commercials making dubious claims and juvenile rhetoric.
We get the government we deserve, apparently.
32, it’s nothing that Democrats don’t do. But I don’t recall any liberal howls of outrage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqB4tyvxWKA
Those who propose banning the 33 bullet magazine exhibit a kind of “fighting the last war” mentality. If such a ban had existed the murderer would have brought three guns with 10 bullet magazines. After such an awful event it’s just human nature to grab for an immediate solution or explanation. And most of the solutions are what people we disagree with should do.
I handled mental commitments for a large Texas county for 30 years, and I found it increasingly frustrating.
Why wasn’t this guy in the hospital? Because he was clearly disturbed and enormously disruptive, but hadn’t physically attacked anyone yet. Everyone knew he was a [i]possible[/i] danger, maybe even a [i]probable[/i] danger, but not an [i]imminent[/i] danger of [i]serious[/i] injury to himself or others. That is the criterion for involuntary commitment.
Why? Because if we lowered the threshold for hospitalization to pick up people like this, we would have to increase available mental-health beds by a factor of ten or more. Psychiatric beds are spectacularly expensive (closer to a thousand than a hundred dollars a day), and the public is not going to accept higher taxes to pay for them. Texas has fewer beds now than it did when we had about a third of our current population, and further cuts are likely. Most other states are in the same condition.
The entire country moved to an outpatient model about fifty years ago, both because it was more cost-effective and because it was more humane. However, the system was never funded adequately, and has not kept up with population growth. There are increasingly effective medications and other forms of therapy, but they require someone to oversee the patients to ensure compliance. Those workers are simply not there because neither insurance companies nor the public will pay for them. The cost is enormously out of the reach of most individual patients, who aren’t working because they are so sick. There used to be a social safety net, but not any more.
Funding cuts have reduced the number of working mental health professionals even as the caseloads have skyrocketed due to stress from the economy. The higher caseloads, in turn, drive more professionals out of the business in a vicious circle. Obviously, the system has to apply priorities, but less attention to patients who only represent a possible danger means that more of them eventually become imminent dangers. Throw in the easy availability of assault weapons and a culture saturated with violent TV, video games, and social rhetoric, and you get an increasing number of schizophrenics whose delusions focus on violence rather than religion. A sick person who thinks he is Jesus is one thing; one who thinks he is The Terminator is something else.
To top everything else off, the US is involved in two simultaneous wars. The available mental health resources are increasingly focusing on returning veterans with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries, which is good, but leaves even fewer resources for the rest of the population. We will see more mass-casualty incidents like Tucson. Lots more
Sorry about not closing the italics properly!
Thanks Dale – have closed italics – Elf
Dale, thank you very much for your comments. They explain a lot–I knew the system was stressed, but I did not know it was that bad. Prayers and more…
Thank you, Dale Rye, for that crystal clear explanation.
…
I suppose, in a broken world, not everything is fixable.
Thank you Dale. This is a very well writen description of the relationship of the various factors that go into the making of this kind of incident. I’m going to copy and save your comments.