Ohio Moves to Prevent Newtown-like Attacks with $5Million for … Mental Health Services.

Just as Ohio, under Republican Governor John Kasich, has lessons for Washington in how government can encourage economic growth, Ohio has a bold idea to deal with the problem of mentally unstable people killing lots lots of people: do something about mental health.

Ohio children and young adults facing mental health crises will be the focus of a $5 million intervention program established by Gov. John Kasich.

The money will be used by mental health and developmental disabilities agencies statewide to help defuse situations where a child poses a potential threat of violence to themselves, their family or others.

The Ohio program was in the works before the deadly Dec. 14 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School that killed 20 children and six adults in Newton, Conn. But it was clearly on the minds of the governor and other officials in setting aside money to deal with volatile mental health situations before they make headlines.

“There are families that get themselves in a position where they have a young child or maybe even an adult child that have very serious problems, mental health problems,” Kasich said today after a press conference concerning expanded services for autistic children.

[Tracy Plouck,¸director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health] said she expects the money to be used over 18 months to help “youth who have circumstances related to their diagnoses who express threatening behavior toward their families and themselves.” The money could go for emergency treatment, medication, a residential program, or respite care for beleaguered parents, she said.

“This is a targeted intervention. This isn’t a sufficient resource to solve all problems in the world.”

Terry Russell, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Ohio, said the money could be put to almost immediate use helping some of more than 1,000 individuals and families his agency is working with “who are in crisis and need relief.”

Adam LanzaBut rather than focus on mental illness and helping those who exhibit signs of violence and their families, the Obama administration is focused on those millions who lawfully and peacefully own guns—guns that have killed fewer innocent people than Ted Kennedy’s car or one of President Obama’s drone strikes.

It’s a different kind of madness.

Adam Lanza was not deterred by laws against his lawful possession of gun, against carrying guns within a school zone, nor against murder. But future atrocities like what happened at Sandy Hook might be prevented if more were done to assist those with mental illness who may pose a threat to themselves and society.

3,625 views

Categories:Uncategorized

35 thoughts on “Ohio Moves to Prevent Newtown-like Attacks with $5Million for … Mental Health Services.

  1. I would like to know who will decide who needs mental health care and who does not. Just because a person is a loner, a Vet, a depressed housewife. a shunned lover, is someone going to require that they get mental help because they MIGHT shoot someone. Was Newtown real? Will your weapons be taken away by the Government if you require treatment for depression. Folks in my opinion we don’t want to go where Obama and Ohio want to take us.

  2. Joe M says:

    Tom. I agree that gun control laws have no promise of addressing this problem. But, I’m also skeptical about Ohio’s idea in this case and throwing money at mental health issues in general.

    After all, the Lanza’s were apparently very well off. Access to mental health care was not a problem for them.

  3. JimmyOlsenCubReporter says:

    Does your crack about “President Obama’s drone strikes” mean that you oppose assassination by drone? I certainly hope so, because I do too. Unfortunately, my experience with “pro-lifers” has been that too many support every other kind of “legal” killing except abortion. I am encouraged that you may be an exception to this “conservative” rule. Peace.

  4. Greg B. says:

    Ted Kennedy’s car? Wow, you’re a real a-hole. You’re also a liar since plenty of legally obtained guns have killed plenty of people. I didn’t realize that unlimited access to assault weapons were a Catholic concern.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      At least I know you read this post, but you still suffer from a reading comprehension deficiency. My statement was that millions of legally owned guns have killed no one. Which is true. I did not say that *all* legally owned guns have killed no one, which is what I would have had to have said for your charge of “liar” to be accurate. So no, I’m not a liar, and the bit about Ted Kennedy’s car is also true. Cheers.

      1. Marvin Derks says:

        “the bit about Ted Kennedy’s car” may be true but how does it relate to the rest of your post? Answer, it doesn’t. In fact, it takes away from an otherwise good post. Too bad.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Okay. Then don’t read that part.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Your posting error was in combining these two elements. If you want to talk about Ted Kennedy, fine, but make it a separate post. You minimized the impact of the true nature of your post. If you don’t agree, that’s your right.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            Thanks for allowing me my rights.

          3. Marvin Derks says:

            In the future I’ll skip the constructive input. You seem to take it as a personal attack.

          4. chris scanlan says:

            It’s not so much what you said, its very much how you said it. 90% of people would have gotten defensive after your comment.
            I agree with you that the Ted Kennedy was out of place but the point made was still a valid point. When people are irresponsible, they become dangerous, much more so than objects designed to be deadly. – I think I heard England is trying to ban knives? It just seems like a backwards way of looking at what is dangerous.

            Godbless,
            Chris S

          5. Tom Crowe says:

            “Constructive” in whose eyes? You asserted that my way of making my point was an error as though it could be seen no other way. I pushed back because I disagree.

          6. Grisha357 says:

            Tom ~ The question is not “taking away guns.” The issue is do we need to stop the manufacture, sale and importation of assault rifles and hi-cap feed systems and more effectively regulate who can buy certain types and quantities of firearms and ammunition? An AR-15 or AK-47 semi auto knock off w/ a 30 round magazine is not needed or even useful for hunting, target shooting or home defense. ~ pax, Greg

          7. Joe M says:

            Why do we need to do that? None of those things would have prevented the Newton tragedy.

      2. Greg B. says:

        It was just a pointless and stupid comment and a lame attempt to unnecessarily denigrate a man who’s been dead for several years (and served this country well for decades btw). There are thousands of pounds of heroin in existence that have killed fewer first graders than Nancy Lanza’a legally-obtained AR-15. Let’s not worry about heroin? I’m getting sick and tired of the all or nothing “thinking” coming from killing machine enthusiasts with a twisted understanding of the second amendment: ‘If it’s not a perfect, stand alone solution to eliminate all gun homicides on its own, it can’t be considered’. Gun violence is a complex problem requiring a complex approach. Addressing mental illness is a big piece of the equation. So is putting tight restrictions on high powered killing machines. If Nancy Lanza wasn’t able to legally obtain that high-powered, relatively inexpensive, semi-automatic killing machine, there’d be fewer dead children in Newtown.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          I denigrate him by pointing out something he did and was never punished for, and by pointing out that people who lionize him but didn’t seem to push for punishing him for his crime think law-abiding folk should be punished because a certain kind of gun is scary?

          Mmm Kay.

          You can assert that I have a twisted understanding of the Second Amendment, but then I can assert that you have a twisted understanding of the Second Amendment, and then where are we?

          Further, you cannot state with certainty that “If Nancy Lanza wasn’t able to legally obtain that high-powered, relatively inexpensive, semi-automatic killing machine, there’d be fewer dead children in Newtown.” Because if Adam Lanza were not able to acquire that AR-15 he had the mental capacity to devise other ways of killing many people with items readily available at home or many shops. Someone bent on destruction will find a way.

          More people were killed by hammers than by AR-15s in 2011. Shall we institute laws to prevent hammer violence while not restricting access to hammers? I think we already have them: laws against murder, for instance.

          I and many others can abide many laws that make such violence less likely, but not laws that seek to remove the right of law-abiding folk from owning these weapons.

          And, frankly, what you are “sick and tired of” doesn’t matter at all. Go soak your head.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Wow. Now I get it. You post in such a way so as to get a reaction from readers. I’ll avoid that trap in the future.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            If by “get a reaction” you mean “make people think about their own preconceived notions,” then yes. Not sure why you’d want to avoid that.

          3. Grisha357 says:

            Dear Tom ~ Look, I exercise my 2nd Amendment roights by owning I’m 5 firearms and am getting back into skeet shooting now that I’ve retired. I also exercise my 1st Amendment right by, among other things, posting here. Neither right however is unlimited. I can’t slander or threaten someone and I can’t shoot a 20mm Vulcan aircraft cannon in my backyard. In Newtown, Aurora and Arizona the shooters had 30 round magazines and it’s likely that this increased the body count. This is, IMHO, a stand up issue for conservatives, especially Catholic conservatives. Getting in line with the GOP which follows the NRA which is beholden to the firearms industry’s desire to sell more “tactical” weapons as hunting diminishes contributes nothing to the common good _ Pax, Greg

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            I’m not sure why you end your comment by suggesting I’m a partisan hack on this issue. I could accuse you of “getting in line with the Dems” just as easily, and with just as much import.

            Of course there are reasonable limits on the Second Amendment and fully automatic weapons, or those with absurdly large ammunitions are a reasonable limitation. Or, a person can own those with the appropriate background check, responsible storage considerations, and requirements for conducting any future sale/transfer of ownership through appropriate channels. I also would support some laws that require a certain level of responsibility in storage of those weapons, particularly if someone in the owner’s home has a criminal record or mental illness.

            I’m not arguing that military-issue weapons ought to be fully legal and available to anyone. But at the same time, recreational shooting and hunting were not the purpose of the Second Amendment, nor merely the establishment of a militia to defend a young nation. I think you know that.

          5. Joe M says:

            The problem with talking about “reasonable limits”, etc. regarding gun control is that it is a complete distraction from solving the problem that started this discussion.

            Adam Lanza had two hand-guns and a shotgun in his car. If he didn’t have a rifle with a high-capacity magazine, he could just as easily have pulled off the same act with different weapons. In fact, a similar attack was carried out in the UK by a man with only hand-guns.

            Banning some type of gun might make some people feel like they have done something. However, they will not have really addressed the issue in a meaningful way.

            Personally, I think that we should spend some time addressing this issue in a meaningful way.

        2. I am not an “all or nothing” gun enthusiast with a twisted understanding of the Second Amendment. I am a mental health professional who owns a gun for self-defense. Nothing in the Constitution protects the right of the individual citizen to own heroin. Your opinions about the late Senator and Mr. Crowe’s and your consistent carping on your minute disagreements are a prime example of derailing logical arguments with nit-picking and–oh, yes–calling people liars and unmentionable body parts passes for arguments with gun-banners, but it doesn’t do much for your abilty to persuade people who keep weapons legally and responsibly.

          So let’s discuss what the Second Amendment DOES say: The opening phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” refers to many of the abuses by the military in the colonial period that are still present in other countries today. These include quartering troops in private homes, confiscating private property, taking farm produce and livestock for feeding troops, sacking, pillage, rapine and plunder. That is how an armed citizenry helps keep the necessary militia “well regulated.” Military commanders and units will not abuse the people they are paid to protect if they know there will be consequences for their actions.

          Likewise, states where gun ownership is free from undue constraint have lower crime rates. Same principle.
          Maybe you are not aware that less than a week before the Sandy Hook tragedy, a killer in an Oregon shopping mall was stopped cold by a man who aimed his concealed 22-caliber pistol at him. The murderer, after killing 2 others, saw him, walked around the corner, and shot himself. I wonder why the press has not widely reported this. Don’t you?

          1. Grisha357 says:

            Regina – If the press didn’t report it how do you know about it. Also – Nobody is talking about .22 rimfires in the conversation. The good guy in this instance didn’t need a AR-15 clone with a 100 round double drum magazine a’la Aurora. The hardware part of this issue is centered around knock offs of military assault rifles with high-cap (30 rds +) feed systems. Pax, Greg

          2. Greg B. says:

            I think you missed the point I was making with my heroin example. Whether it’s legal is irrelevant to pointing out the lack of logic with Tom’s Ted K. comment. I don’t think I need to explain it any further than that. But I can. As for the second amendment, its intent was to ensure a “well regulated militia” to protect a young nation. It was written by men who lived in a time when they couldn’t possibly foresee handheld weapons that could spray enough bullets to wipe out an entire room of people with a single pull of the trigger. To suggest that it was somehow intended to guarantee that a middle aged woman living in suburban Connecticut 220 years later could own whatever high powered military grade killing machine that weapons technology could achieve that she desired without any restrictions whatsoever is simply absurd. Fortunately, 20 dead first graders was enough of a tragedy to be a wake-up call and millions more Americans now get this. Of course there will always be those that are simply too thick headed to be reasoned with.

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            Greg B— That you miss or refuse to accept the logic in my Ted K comment does not mean it lacked logic. But you immediately went to name calling rather than “what point are you trying to make?”

            As for your interpretation of the Second Amendment, check out Ben Shapiro dismantle your arguments as Piers Morgan makes them: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/11/video-piers-morgan-discovers-ben-shapiro-isnt-alex-jones/

    2. abadilla says:

      Here we go again with the name calling and that really makes you special, doesn’t it? I was twenty-one when Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kopechne so I know what Tom is talking about. The man never faced justice for what he did precisely because he was a Kennedy. You might disagree, well, in fact you do, but really, do you need the name-calling to state your disagreement and frustration?

    3. Grisha357 says:

      Greg – This kind of in civility doesn’t do anybody any good. Before the election it got so bad that some of us stopped reading the back and forth insults one after the other. I happen to agree that the problem of gun violence in America can’t be addressed without adopting some additional reasonable restrictions on the hardware available such as extended capacity magazines and assault rifles as well as mental health reforms etc. However, calling someone something like an “a-hole,” if anything, weakens the writer’s credibility and thus his her case. Pax, Greg

      1. Greg B. says:

        Civility went out the door with the writer’s Ted Kennedy remark.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Only from you. I have addressed your arguments, you have attacked me without asking whether I have a valid point in that Ted Kennedy comment.

        2. Joe M says:

          Why is it uncivil to point out something that Ted Kennedy did was wrong?

    4. Grisha357 says:

      Dear Greg ~ May I ask you to refrain from the name calling? That kind of thing pretty much ruined this forum in the run up to the election and I think most of us would rather not return to it. Thanks, Greg Smith

      1. Greg B. says:

        It’s not name calling for the sake of name calling, I’m using words to correctly describe writers who’ve earned the label by doing things like taking a cheap shot at a deceased senator. Funny, I don’t see the ones accusing me of name calling calling out the CV supporters who find a way to insert “pervert” and “sodomite” into as many posts as they can.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Cheap shot? Calling him a womanizing drunk would be a cheap shot. Invoking a crime he committed and got away with is not a cheap shot. Dead or alive.

        2. Joe M says:

          Greg. The part about Tom’s comment that bothered you was the threat to Kennedy’s reputation? Wow.

    5. And plenty more legally obtained guns haven’t killed people, which is the point Tom was trying to make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.