Thinking the unthinkable

First, the kid isn't necessarily autistic just because he's a smart kid with behavioral problems. FTA: Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around.... You're pretty eager to jump to a diagnosis of autism without giving the other possibilities due consideration.

Second, even if he is autistic, is there a single best way to treat every autistic kid? Certainly not every autistic kid has exactly the same condition he does. Having the savvy and self-control to apologize to try to get privileges back just minutes after throwing a screaming fit is not something that every thirteen-year-old autistic kid could do. Grabbing a knife and threatening murder-suicide because you've been told to do something is also not a universal feature of autism. Even if you're right that he's autistic, and even if that's his only problem, he may need different treatment than other autistic kids.

Third, autistic kids are not naturally born to be wired to a computer the way worker bees are born to gather food and drone bees are born to breed. Temple Grandin wrote that she was very lucky to grow up in a time when children were forced to socialize and kids spent a lot of time making things with their hands instead of watching TV and playing video games. She wrote, "Even today I don't have a computer at home because it can have a hypnotic effect on me. I can get caught up watching certain screen savers for hours." You assume that he would use the computer to learn, explore, and connect, but that isn't a given. Autistic people don't naturally know what to do with a computer the way an infant knows what to do with a nipple. He might just play COD all day.

Fourth, it sounds like the mom is just fine with him being different and only wants him to learn not to be violent and destructive so he can live a life outside institutions. The way the kid is behaving, he's headed to jail or a mental hospital. It also sounds like she's taken an interest in his condition, sought a lot of advice, and tried a lot of different things. FTA: ... various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. This is not a kid whose mom refuses to accept his difference. This is a kid whose mom taught his younger brothers a safety drill to execute when he picks up a weapon. She isn't aiming at "normal." She's aiming at "not a killer."

And that leads to the final and most important point: being a brilliant geek won't necessarily stop him from killing someone someday.

With more modern drug regimes, extreme behaviour by these poor souls is more 'manageable'. And in many cases I think, that's the best you can hope for.

The effects of this policy are varied. On one hand, it can make the polices' job more complex. There was a period some time back where the police were being confronted regularly by dangerous behaviour, which lead to deaths by police shootings. It spawned a rash of confrontations and corresponding shooting deaths, which appeared to be escalating. It soon became obvious that these mentally unstable people were getting a fast ticket to pain relief, assisted by police action.

This lead to improved education for the police, in respect of resolution and firearms training. The situation deescalated after that, and the cycle of depression, anger and suicide by proxy was broken.

Australia is a large country, only a little smaller than the United States, with a population of only 20 or so million. So there are regional areas separated by reasonable distances from the major capitals. Two regional cities near to Melbourne that I am aware of have become the nexus for individuals that are part of this community care attitude.

Like attracts like in this instance, and a natural clustering has occurred so that the proportion of the population with mental health issues is greater than the average.

To get an inkling of the degree of organisation involved as a result of these policies, just google 'bendigo mental health'.

While guns may have increased the severity of the damage, the lack of a gun did little to stop a similar event from taking place. People that want to do harm to others will find a way, and while there's something to be said for trying to lessen how much damage they can do, that seems to be a poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease.

Put another way: let's look at the overall violent crime rates by country instead. Here we go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... US ranks at 4.2/100k

I'd also like to point out your selective data pull is very misleading (whether it was intentional or not I don't know; I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Of those 9 deaths per 100k, 5.75 are suicides and 0.27 are unintentional; only 2.98 were murders (so we have nearly 75% of our murders by gun, but overall a quite low murder rate compared to over a dozen countries at 30+/100k and four over 50). Also from missing from your quote - the US is #12 in terms of firearm deaths per capita, not #1 as your data implies.

The only data that is really relevant to gun control arguments are murders that would not have been possible without a gun and (probably more relevant) accidental gun deaths. Anyone sufficiently determined to kill themselves will find any number of ways, so that's almost completely irrelevant to the discussion.