Explore the vast range of titles available.

In recent years, mass violence associated with men who identify as involuntary celibates (incels) has been of increasing concern. Incels engage in an online community where misogyny and incitements to violence against women are prevalent, often owing to the belief that women are denying them a ‘right’ to sex. Indeed, inceldom can be considered a form of extremism. Information released about the prepetrators of incel-associated violence consistently suggests that mental disorder is a contributory factor and may increase vulnerability to engaging with the incel community. Depression, autism and personality disorder are particularly relevant. To date, there has been little research into the mental health of incels and how, in some, this contributes to violence. This article considers the associations between mental disorder and inceldom, including the risk factors for incel-related violence, and makes recommendations for best practice in risk assessment and clinical intervention.

This article summarizes psychological and social characteristics of mass or rampage school shooters. The sample of mostly teen-age males, N=20, wasrestricted to Americans whose shooting was at a secondary school, not college. Many negative characteristics of these or similar shooters already in theliterature were identified in our sample, e.g. obsession with violence, depression, family problems. Also, attention was paid to the possible presence ofpositive characteristics, such as having an active, important goal in sports, the media, professions, or an active participation in pro-social groups at school orin pro-social groups in the community. Not one example of such positive characteristics was found in the biographical material for any shooter in thesample. It was concluded that the absence of positive meaning is an important factor in the lives of school shooters; vaious possible positive responses tothis issue are briefly noted.

Since 2010, police responded to dozens of calls related to Cruz. [...]leading up to the shooting at least two professors at the institute identified Cho's behavior as becoming more disturbing. [...]sometimes an empathetic inquiry is all that is needed to begin the kind of ongoing dialogue that can address grievances and correct problems.

Politicization of public health has always contributed to legal and policy shifts during new presidential administrations, but perhaps never more so than now. The ascendancy of President Donald Trump in 2017, coupled with a Republican-controlled Congress and majorities in more than half the states, carry enormous legal repercussions for the public's health. Actual and proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may strip millions from health coverage or force them to “earn” access to basic health services. Health care workers (HCWs) may be authorized to deny services on religious/moral grounds that infringe patients' interests and reproductive rights. Substances like marijuana and opioids are counter-regulated while gun violence rages on due to lax laws and enforcement. Substantial delays or reversals of federal health policies may derail progress in childhood nutrition. Families seeking the promise of U.S. citizenship may be rerouted with enormous impacts on population health. The Administration's rollbacks of environmental regulations may cause public health aftershocks for generations. As discussed below, though hard to measure, cumulative negative health effects flowing from these and other law or policy objectives are substantial.

In the face of increased gun violence and mass shootings in the United States, so-called \"red flag\" laws have become a new and popular tool for protecting public safety. The laws are gaining momentum in state houses around the country because they provide law enforcement with a means to expeditiously remove firearms from potentially dangerous individuals-regardless of the individual's criminal record and mental health history. Thus far, the laws are a magnet for constitutional challenges-including claims that the laws violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Note provides a historical and legal background of red flag laws in four states-Connecticut, Indiana, California, and Florida-and briefly examines the surrounding case law in those states. It then explains the analytical framework that federal circuit courts use to analyze Second Amendment challenges to regulations restricting firearm possession. It proceeds to discuss how federal courts apply that legal framework to laws that- like red flag laws-prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms by individuals deemed \"dangerous\" by society. It concludes by arguing that courts considering a Second Amendment challenge to a red flag law should find that the law regulates conduct and individuals protected by the Second Amendment, and then evaluate the law under a test of intermediate scrutiny.