USA Today: Fort Hood shooter Ivan Lopez had mental health problems

[alp227]

Yamiche Alcindor, USA TODAY 12:37 a.m. EDT April 3, 2014

The man behind Wednesday's deadly shooting at Fort Hood had mental health issues and was being treated for depression and anxiety before he killed three people and wounded 16 others.

Hours after the shooter opened fire, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas identified the murderous soldier as Spc. Ivan Lopez. However, officials did not say what might have motivated him to kill fellow soldiers and then himself.

"We do know that this soldier had behavioral health and mental health issues and was being treated for that," said Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, head of the Army's III Corps at the Texas base.

Lopez was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder, but had not yet been diagnosed for the illness.

full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/02/fort-hood-shooter-had-mental-health-problems/7237489/

[PoliticAverse]

1. "Lopez, who was on medication, served four months in Iraq in 2011 and had "self-diagnosed"

a traumatic brain injury."

[Spitfire of ATJ]

2. Good thing he was in Texas so he could get a gun easily.

[BainsBane]

4. Guns pretty much go with

being in the military, regardless of the state in which the base is located.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. The documented mental problems get overridden by the uniform?

What if he's a mechanic?

[hobbit709]

6. A gun can be gotten easily in ANY state.

you don't have to buy one at a gun store.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. Try getting one in Washington DC.

[hobbit709]

10. flash some cash on the right street corner.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Oh sure. There are guys in long coats saying, "Wanna buy a watch?" too.

[hobbit709]

24. The legality of buying a gun never stopped anyone from getting one.

Even money says I can go into any city and within a couple of hours get anything I want.
Most people wanting to get a gun in a hurry aren't going to bother with some place where they have to fill out forms.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. No. They go to a gun show.

[hobbit709]

27. don't even have to do that.

And it's no easier in TX than anywhere else. Just as easy in your state.

[tolkien90]

11. You mean the same place with one of the highest murder rates in the country?

Just making sure here.

[arcane1]

13. Yep, right there adjacent to Virginia n/t

[tolkien90]

15. D.C. has a murder rate almost five times that of Virginia

Why aren't these guns as deadly in Virginia?

Not to mention, D.C. has restrictions of firearms outside of simply buying them. I mean, you can get arrested for having an empty shell case in your house if you don't have a license form what I understand.

Do the criminals there not obey these laws or something? I'm confused.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. You aren't "confused". You are in a panic that the discussion turned to lax Texas gun laws.

[arcane1]

23. And Richmond had the highest rate in the nation, for years.

[tolkien90]

31. Then compare New Hampshire's homicide rate to California's or New York's

You won't like the results.

[arcane1]

32. You seem rather obsessed with New Hampshire

Especially in a thread about Texas

[tolkien90]

34. I would like to note that you are no longer arguing

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. I suppose if they eliminated their restrictive gun laws that number would go down.

[tolkien90]

19. Lax gun laws seem to be working in New Hampshire

You know, the same place with a lower homicide than the U.K. and most European countries (aside from Switzerland, of course).

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. New Hampshire? Seriously? You want national policy to be based on a state where the boons dock?

[tolkien90]

28. Seems to be working

New Hampshire has some very lax gun laws and the lowest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, D.C. has a murder rate roughly twenty times that of New Hampshire.

How about some actual logic and facts instead of rhetoric?

Oh wait, you'd be on my side if you were familiar with those things.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. We better check those homicide rates:

UK (for latest year - 2012/13): England and Wales: 552, Scotland 62, Northern Ireland 17, for a total of 631, or, for a population of 63.7 million, 9.9 per million.

New Hampshire, on the other hand, had 25 in 2011, 19 in 2012 and 25 in 2013. Even taking the 2012 figures, that's 14.4 per million population, for 1.32 million population.

Looks like your talking points are out of date.

[beevul]

36. Ahh yes, rates.

Rates are how you make Illinois look like a low-gun-violence utopia with its 2.8 gun murders per 100k, and make Delaware look like the blood thirsty wild west, with its rate of 4.2 per 100k, even though Illinois had 364 gun murders compared to Delawares 38.

(using 2010 numbers because they're the first thing I found)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Clearly, one of those two states has a very large problem with gun violence, leading the nation in gun deaths annually or coming a close second, and one does not. In this case, its Illinois with its lower rate, which has a MUCH larger gun violence problem with 364 murders, while Delaware despite its high rate isn't even close with 38.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Yes, you have to use rates when comparing places of widely differing sizes and populations

and yes, that does show that Delaware has an appalling gun murder problem. 38 in a year, for a small rural state? I would say that Illinois has a problem too. I don't know what you're talking about with "leading the nation in gun deaths annually or coming a close second", though. Illinois is 8th in that table for total gun murders.

[beevul]

38. Most people define a problem by how difficult is is to solve...

Most people define a problem by how difficult is is to solve, and how much resources would be required in a reasonable attempt to solve it.

Rates ignore that.

If Illinois had 350 diagnosed with ebola, while Delaware has 35, the bulk of medical attention would be focused on Illinois and rightfully so.

On top of that, the rate picture changes drastically, when its used at the city level versus the state level. In fact, the entire picture changes.

If you want to compare places, honesty demands comparing the places where the gun violence actually IS happening. Including the outlieing areas where it generally doesn't, paints a misleading picture at best.

"I don't know what you're talking about with "leading the nation in gun deaths annually or coming a close second", though. Illinois is 8th in that table for total gun murders."

Chicago is KNOWN for gun violence. It is known for leading the nation in annual gun murders several times, or coming close, in the last couple decades.

It isn't my fault if you haven't been paying attention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. You're the one who brought up Illinois

so I guess it's your fault that a statistic you think is 'misleading' was introduced into this thread.

"If you want to compare places, honesty demands comparing the places where the gun violence actually IS happening."

So, you think that in a discussion of violence, we should never talk about places where violence doesn't happen? That would make it impossible to discuss what might work. All you'd be able to talk about is bad places.

If you wanted to talk about Chicago, then you should have mentioned it before, not Illinois.

If you think people shouldn't mention rates, are you saying that tolkien90 should have just pointed out that fewer people are murdered in New Hampshire than in the UK, and that would have been a relevant point in some way?

[onethatcares]

5. I do believe

I will apply to USA today for a position stating the obvious.

Jeez, he served in Iraq in 2011 and still wasn't diagnosed? Imagine how many of the troops are sharing the

same problems and haven't even been looked at yet or have been discharged. But we do manage to have

some great "hero" welcome home parades.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. The suicide rate already exposed that.

[CFLDem]

7. Ya think, USA today?

No he shot people because he was mentally well-balanced...

Jesus, Get it together people!

[Hip_Flask]

25. Hate to tell you...

... but being a murdering asshole doesn't necessarily imply mental illness.

It is the default that most people go to but sometimes it just isn't there. It makes people feel better though. "He must have been craaaaazzy!!!"

[CFLDem]

29. Disagree

Not going on murdering sprees is by definition a quality that determines sanity.

[Hip_Flask]

30. Really?

Every person who has killed is "by definition" insane?

Modern psychology would disagree with you.

[CFLDem]

33. No

Every person who has mass killed is insane in my book.

[Blue_Tires]

12. I saw in another story that Lopez had an (unconfirmed) altercation

with some people or group of people not long before the incident...Was there anything more to this?

[tammywammy]

14. Last night I heard the press conference on the radio

He was asked about that rumor, but the guy speaking for Ft Hood said that that hadn't been confirmed. It could be one of those rumors that comes out right away and isn't true.

[HereSince1628]

16. Sociologically speaking, "we" (the good guys) need to be able to distance this 'danger' from "us".

Time to be careful in distinguishing what 'mental health problems' might have contributed, and what 'we' need in terms of identification of a culprit.